Top end aluminium bike or lower end carbon
Comments
-
Have a look at the group test in the latest C+ of £1000-£1500 carbon and Alu bikes. Spesh Allez comes out top.0
-
I have moved from carbon frames to aluminium over the last year. My first road bike was a Specialized Tarmac, I then had an Orbea Orca. At one point I thought carbon was the only way to go for lightness and comfort.
I now ride a CAAD10 as my summer race bike and have a Kinesis as my winter bike. All I can say is how wrong was I. Aluminium frames can be really good. Both my Al bikes are comfortable and light and feel very racy/nimble.
To the OP my advice would be don't get hung up in frame material and for god sake don't make the silly mistake I did writing off aluminium. Try the bikes on offer, buy the one that fits feels right.0 -
Littleleg5 wrote:I am new to this
In that case, IMHO, whatever you chose will make little practical defference to your riding. No bikes in this range will be complete duffers or turn you into a cycling superstar overnight. In the early days whatever you chose will be less comfortable than you think it should be, nor will it be as fast as you have been led to believe by reading these forums.
My advice, for what its worth, is to consider more what you THINK (remember you are new so dont really know) you want out of cycling and how much money you really WANT to spend on something you dont know will actually float your boat.
Two options then present themselves
1) Spend a little less on an AL bike that, if you end up liking cycling can be fitted with full guards and used for Winter/wet duties when you inevitably want a 'better' bike. But even if you only like cycling a bit or cannot afford a 'better' bike it will serve you perfectly well. At around your price I would look at a Cannondale Synapse AL for instance.
2) Spend a little more, because you have more disposable cash or you are convinced cycling is for you, and get an established CF bike. For me, in the £1k-£1.5k market its hard to see past http://www.canyon.com/_en/roadbikes/bike.html?b=3239
You can still go for a Ribble or PX but if you are convinced cycling is for you it would seem most people move on from these brands when funds allow, not because they are not good products. In terms of performance they are perfectly adequate.
As a recreational rider past and present for quite a while, I would like to say I am more comfortable and ride faster on my CF 'best bike' but the reality, and Garmin data, would tend to suggest that the real world differences are slim or imagined at best.
In summary, buy what you think LOOKS the best at the money you want to spend.........then ride.Coach H. (Dont ask me for training advice - 'It's not about the bike')0 -
2013 Focus Cayo Evo 5.0 for £1150: http://infinity-cycles.co.uk/shop/index ... uct_id=320
You get a top quality, sub 1kg UCI race-proven carbon frame, 6700 Ultegra and semi-decent wheels. As long as you can cope with the racy geometry, this hands-down beats anything else I've seen out there for sub £1200. Sizes limited to 51, 54 and 57 though. They also have the 6.0 with 105 for £999, which is also available in size 60.0 -
"Two options then present themselves
1) Spend a little less on an AL bike that, if you end up liking cycling can be fitted with full guards and used for Winter/wet duties when you inevitably want a 'better' bike. But even if you only like cycling a bit or cannot afford a 'better' bike it will serve you perfectly well. At around your price I would look at a Cannondale Synapse AL for instance."
I did exactly that when returning to road riding 6 years ago. If I was buying today I'd likely choose the Synapse but at that time it didn't have clearance / mounts for mudguards, so I went for a Racelight Tk. Brilliant year round bike. Last year I bought a Scott CR1-SL frame and fork and built it into a summer / dry weather bike, but I still have the Tk for wet / winter riding.
If you go for option 2 but don't like the idea of shopping on line, the new Boardman got a good review on here.0 -
DKay wrote:2013 Focus Cayo Evo 5.0 for £1150: http://infinity-cycles.co.uk/shop/index ... uct_id=320
You get a top quality, sub 1kg UCI race-proven carbon frame, 6700 Ultegra and semi-decent wheels. As long as you can cope with the racy geometry, this hands-down beats anything else I've seen out there for sub £1200. Sizes limited to 51, 54 and 57 though. They also have the 6.0 with 105 for £999, which is also available in size 60.
Missing the point of "new to this"
Focus is a really good cheap(ish) race bike for 2/3/4th Cat's but inless the OP is in the Physiological minority this will be even less comfortable than others due to geometry and not able to be reasonably used year round (yes I know you can use clip on guards etc but they are a compromise regardless of peoples excuses to justify having a bike that will not take them).
Good spot for a good deal for that type of bike but not, in my oponion, a good option in the circumstances here.Coach H. (Dont ask me for training advice - 'It's not about the bike')0 -
rafletcher wrote:Have a look at the group test in the latest C+ of £1000-£1500 carbon and Alu bikes. Spesh Allez comes out top.
If carbon generally costs more than aluminium then there seems little point in comparing carbon and aluminium bikes of the same price imo.
The op should be looking at a sale bike anyway so the list price comparison in the group test is even less helpful.
Something like the Focus mentioned above would be my recomendation.
Should be a nice ride, would make an exellent winter/second bike if the op really got into cycling, and would be easy to re sell at not too big a hit if the need arose.
As for being to 'racey', its not overly racey is it? Its just a road bike.
Why is it often assumed a newbie needs/wants a Sectuer/Roubaix type bike?0 -
Coach H wrote:
Missing the point of "new to this"
Focus is a really good cheap(ish) race bike for 2/3/4th Cat's but inless the OP is in the Physiological minority this will be even less comfortable than others due to geometry and not able to be reasonably used year round (yes I know you can use clip on guards etc but they are a compromise regardless of peoples excuses to justify having a bike that will not take them).
Good spot for a good deal for that type of bike but not, in my oponion, a good option in the circumstances here.
Do not get why your assumptions of the op's phsyology are any better than the guy who recomended the Focus.
The Cayo Evo is a sportive bike anyway isnt it? All this 2/3/4th Cat's talk is a load of bull and is only going to scare the op into buying a Roubaix (or even worse a Secteur) :roll:0 -
Carbonator wrote:Coach H wrote:
Missing the point of "new to this"
Focus is a really good cheap(ish) race bike for 2/3/4th Cat's but inless the OP is in the Physiological minority this will be even less comfortable than others due to geometry and not able to be reasonably used year round (yes I know you can use clip on guards etc but they are a compromise regardless of peoples excuses to justify having a bike that will not take them).
Good spot for a good deal for that type of bike but not, in my oponion, a good option in the circumstances here.
Do not get why your assumptions of the op's phsyology are any better than the guy who recomended the Focus.
The Cayo Evo is a sportive bike anyway isnt it? All this 2/3/4th Cat's talk is a load of bull and is only going to scare the op into buying a Roubaix (or even worse a Secteur) :roll:
Its got a relatively short Head tube (~1.5cm less), and a slightly longer effective top tube (~0.5cm longer) than you would find on a sportive type bike.
oh and the frame angles are steeper than a sportive bike.0 -
A fair point. It's worth noting that when I speak of open-mould carbon frames, I'm comparing them to fully engineered carbon frames, and not necessarily AL frames (I'll get into that later). In terms of what constitutes 'performance benefit' I suppose this could be broken down into aero, weight and compliance.
Aero is probably the most contentious from an open-mould standpoint. This is because even though the big names do all the R&D, the moulds can be easily stolen or copied. I don't think there's any argument that aero testing and development is done at great cost as marginal gains are everything at the top. Specialized recently built their own tunnel, companies turn to aero specialists for design (both Giant and Scott have used Simon Smart, Spec-McLaren), and they're always pushing boundaries (both UCI-legal and design) in order to eek out a lower cd at varying yaw angles. Trek, Ridley, Scott, Cervelo, Spec, Felt and many more tunnel test their bikes. Even those who don't bother (either due to money or it being a low priority) typically use CFD to approximate real world conditions. I could link articles and interviews for days on this, but as I said I doubt there is any real debate on this.
Weight is an interesting one as it's more the boutique companies that focus on this. That said there is still a bit of a battle for the big players to produce lighter framesets, even if it's just for bragging rights. Scott, Cervelo, Trek, to name a few, all prototype in-house. Their engineers work with different carbon moduli and layups in order to find the best strength to weight to create light frames that won't crumble and still retain the desired ride qualities (see next section). The boutique segment do the same thing although they don't always have the facilities in-house, but they create incredibly light and strong frames. Check out Rolo, Guru and Parlee for examples of quality exemplified through workmanship.
Compliance is perhaps the most import metric in terms of bike quality, and that which is the most difficult for open-mould fabs to recreate. Compliance can be anything from a super-stiff frame for a sprinter, to something with a cushy ride for the sportive rider. There are three main things that influence compliance- geometry/design, carbon layup and added/propriety tech.
Geometry/design is not just a question of shaping the frame based upon the status quo. Everything from the shape of the down tube, to the size of the head tube, to the curve of the seat stays impacts the ride. Who does all this? A combination of PhD's, industry experts and cyclists. Look at the 25.4mm seatpost of the Synapse, the Kamm-styling of the Foil and Madone or even the wonky forks that Pinarello use. There is no accident to these designs and the all affect compliance and are the cumulative result of lots of people's hard work
Layup influences ride. Depending on the manner in which specific types of carbons are applied and where, the ride characteristics are altered. This process requires considerable knowledge of not just carbon, but also bicycle geometry as how force is applied. When I speak to inferior layups, this is what I'm referring to. Anybody can steal/copy a mould, but they don't replicate the process and materials that makes a good frame what it is. If they did manage to copy the materials and application process then the price of the frames would be much higher which eliminates the consumer's incentive to buy. A good example of difference in materials and care taken when differently applied would be the Scott Foil. It's available in either HMF or HMX carbon, the latter is 20% stiffer. With the HMX carbon they're able to make a thinner tube which reduces weight, but the lack of material doesn't adversely harm the ride, in fact it's as near to identical as you can get. Even the smaller companies work with their manufacturers to dial in ride. WyndyMilla does this with Sarto. There are loads of prototypes and they work together to tune characteristics. Again, not something you'll find with HongFu.
In terms of Propriety tech, that's an easy one. Spec have Zertz, Cannondale have SAVE and the Power Pyramid, Trek have IsoSpeed etc. These are all designed with the same resources and purposes as I've listed above and can't be recreated in a random fab for practical or legal reasons.
That's carbon, but you'll find that these design principles are the same when it comes to their alu models even though the materials are different. Specialized's E5 frames use SmartWeld (and many other techs) to create a light and stiff alu frame and applied Zertz to the Secteur for a smoother ride. Kinesis developed kinesium to shave weight. Scott applied aero shaped tubes to the Speedster. These are just a few examples but they illustrate how trickle down works in the industry.
Check out how Guru bikes do it. Now think that the PX's of the world do nothing more than apply a sticker to an anonymous frame. Which would you rather have regardless of material?
http://www.bikerumor.com/2013/12/10/factory-tour-guru-cycles-part-1-office-visit-carbon-bike-design-stress-testing/
http://www.bikerumor.com/2013/12/11/factory-tour-guru-cycles-part-2-building-a-carbon-bicycle-frame/
http://www.bikerumor.com/2013/12/14/factory-tour-guru-cycles-part-3-titanium-frame-building-painting-and-finishing/[/quote]
A very interesting post.0 -
ALIHISGREAT wrote:Its got a relatively short Head tube (~1.5cm less), and a slightly longer effective top tube (~0.5cm longer) than you would find on a sportive type bike.
oh and the frame angles are steeper than a sportive bike.
Focus site says its a sportive bike suitable for longer (so more comfortable) rides.0 -
Lets be honest.
A £1000 bike or a £10,000 bike.... at the end of the day its still a bike. A frame and two wheels essentially.
The performance benefits are marginal. Only necessary if those margins are required (ie competition). You pay for a marginal gain via a law of diminishing return.
The £750 Aluminium bike isnt going to fall apart or feel as if it has square wheels compared to the 10,000 carbon bike.
Infact its the rider that is the biggest factor- the rider is the engine and the biggest speed, weight and aero factor. Put me on a £10,000 Scott and Mark Cavendish on a £500 Halfords Special and he would still woop my arse.
People bang on about aero, frame and tube design, tiny differences between one tube and another etc but unless you want to shave off 2 seconds on your weekend run (which 99% of people only do) then its a pointless money pit.
The vast majority don't race, don't compete and mainly ride for recreation, fitness and fun with the odd sportive or charity ride thrown in.
Marketing has forced road riders to think they are pros and need to pay for pro-grade items. Clothing, components and Accessories unfortunately now fall under the same problem.
Best advice is buy the best bike you can comfortably afford and like the look of be it Carbon, Aluminium or Wood. Don't think all the marketing bull and talk is going to make drastic night and day differences it says it does because it doesn't.
Go out, have fun and ride.0 -
Carbonator wrote:ALIHISGREAT wrote:Its got a relatively short Head tube (~1.5cm less), and a slightly longer effective top tube (~0.5cm longer) than you would find on a sportive type bike.
oh and the frame angles are steeper than a sportive bike.
Focus site says its a sportive bike suitable for longer (so more comfortable) rides.
The Focus marketing boys can describe it how they like to sell the biggest volume to the biggest market. The FACT is the geometry is as quoted by ALIHISGREAT.
As someone 'new to this' the OP is unlikely to be able to maintain a particularly shallow torso angle. Therefore unless they have proportionally long legs, short torso, long arms for their height it is unlikely that this, admittedly well priced bike for the spec and a good spot, bike will fit them for the intended purpose without tinkering such as a shorter and /or flipped stem and shorter than optimal exposed seat post.
Does not take full guards so could never be an excellent winter bike, i think.Carbonator wrote:Something like the Focus mentioned above would be my recomendation.
Should be a nice ride, would make an exellent winter/second bike if the op really got into cycling, and would be easy to re sell at not too big a hit if the need arose.
Good option but possibly not for the OP, IMHOCoach H. (Dont ask me for training advice - 'It's not about the bike')0 -
Grill wrote:Aero is probably the most contentious from an open-mould standpoint. This is because even though the big names do all the R&D, the moulds can be easily stolen or copied. I don't think there's any argument that aero testing and development is done at great cost as marginal gains are everything at the top. Specialized recently built their own tunnel, companies turn to aero specialists for design (both Giant and Scott have used Simon Smart, Spec-McLaren), and they're always pushing boundaries (both UCI-legal and design) in order to eek out a lower cd at varying yaw angles. Trek, Ridley, Scott, Cervelo, Spec, Felt and many more tunnel test their bikes. Even those who don't bother (either due to money or it being a low priority) typically use CFD to approximate real world conditions. I could link articles and interviews for days on this, but as I said I doubt there is any real debate on this.
Weight is an interesting one as it's more the boutique companies that focus on this. That said there is still a bit of a battle for the big players to produce lighter framesets, even if it's just for bragging rights. Scott, Cervelo, Trek, to name a few, all prototype in-house. Their engineers work with different carbon moduli and layups in order to find the best strength to weight to create light frames that won't crumble and still retain the desired ride qualities (see next section). The boutique segment do the same thing although they don't always have the facilities in-house, but they create incredibly light and strong frames. Check out Rolo, Guru and Parlee for examples of quality exemplified through workmanship.
Compliance is perhaps the most import metric in terms of bike quality, and that which is the most difficult for open-mould fabs to recreate. Compliance can be anything from a super-stiff frame for a sprinter, to something with a cushy ride for the sportive rider. There are three main things that influence compliance- geometry/design, carbon layup and added/propriety tech.
Geometry/design is not just a question of shaping the frame based upon the status quo. Everything from the shape of the down tube, to the size of the head tube, to the curve of the seat stays impacts the ride. Who does all this? A combination of PhD's, industry experts and cyclists. Look at the 25.4mm seatpost of the Synapse, the Kamm-styling of the Foil and Madone or even the wonky forks that Pinarello use. There is no accident to these designs and the all affect compliance and are the cumulative result of lots of people's hard work
Layup influences ride. Depending on the manner in which specific types of carbons are applied and where, the ride characteristics are altered. This process requires considerable knowledge of not just carbon, but also bicycle geometry as how force is applied. When I speak to inferior layups, this is what I'm referring to. Anybody can steal/copy a mould, but they don't replicate the process and materials that makes a good frame what it is. If they did manage to copy the materials and application process then the price of the frames would be much higher which eliminates the consumer's incentive to buy. A good example of difference in materials and care taken when differently applied would be the Scott Foil. It's available in either HMF or HMX carbon, the latter is 20% stiffer. With the HMX carbon they're able to make a thinner tube which reduces weight, but the lack of material doesn't adversely harm the ride, in fact it's as near to identical as you can get. Even the smaller companies work with their manufacturers to dial in ride. WyndyMilla does this with Sarto. There are loads of prototypes and they work together to tune characteristics. Again, not something you'll find with HongFu.
In terms of Propriety tech, that's an easy one. Spec have Zertz, Cannondale have SAVE and the Power Pyramid, Trek have IsoSpeed etc. These are all designed with the same resources and purposes as I've listed above and can't be recreated in a random fab for practical or legal reasons.
That's carbon, but you'll find that these design principles are the same when it comes to their alu models even though the materials are different. Specialized's E5 frames use SmartWeld (and many other techs) to create a light and stiff alu frame and applied Zertz to the Secteur for a smoother ride. Kinesis developed kinesium to shave weight. Scott applied aero shaped tubes to the Speedster. These are just a few examples but they illustrate how trickle down works in the industry.
Check out how Guru bikes do it. Now think that the PX's of the world do nothing more than apply a sticker to an anonymous frame. Which would you rather have regardless of material?
http://www.bikerumor.com/2013/12/10/factory-tour-guru-cycles-part-1-office-visit-carbon-bike-design-stress-testing/
http://www.bikerumor.com/2013/12/11/factory-tour-guru-cycles-part-2-building-a-carbon-bicycle-frame/
http://www.bikerumor.com/2013/12/14/factory-tour-guru-cycles-part-3-titanium-frame-building-painting-and-finishing/
Grill, this is all great and pertinent info. My only comment is that the thread is about top end Al or low end CF. Therefore is not the reality that the R&D Depts of the 'BRANDS' will not have anything to do with this sector of the market? The OEM's will do all this work on behalf of the brand. Particularly as they have all the manufacturing expertise.
To use Specialized as probably the best example; for this part of the market Merida, as the OEM, will do all the design and configuration and will probably also create the specification for the model. It also would not surprise me if Spesh don't even sign off on it and Merida present it to them as the model full stop. Even for the higher end, as I understand it Specialized did the shaping of the Venge with McLaren and then handed over this design to Merida who did the R&D into how to lay up the shapes to make a bike that would ride well.
This is all off topic, so I still stand by newbies should buy the bike they like to look at at a price they are comfortable spending. Over £500-£600 it will not be the bike that determines if the OP takes to cycling or not.Coach H. (Dont ask me for training advice - 'It's not about the bike')0 -
Its funny that the 'its just a frame and two' wheels point of view seems to be used in favour of cheaper bikes and yet if someone suggests what is basically just a normal (not overly 'aggressive') road bike and sudenly small differences are used to say its unsuitable for someone we do not know much about.
Hope this thread has been more helpful than your lbs (who just wanted to sell you what they had it sounds) and you find a good bike that you do not regret buying op ;-)
You will learn most about what suits you only after riding your first bike but I hope you are not too far out.
You could just get a nice comfy Secteur and be done with it.
If you find you need a more road bike, road bike then there should be plenty of people willing to buy it from you.0 -
Coach H wrote:Grill, this is all great and pertinent info. My only comment is that the thread is about top end Al or low end CF. Therefore is not the reality that the R&D Depts of the 'BRANDS' will not have anything to do with this sector of the market? The OEM's will do all this work on behalf of the brand. Particularly as they have all the manufacturing expertise.
To use Specialized as probably the best example; for this part of the market Merida, as the OEM, will do all the design and configuration and will probably also create the specification for the model. It also would not surprise me if Spesh don't even sign off on it and Merida present it to them as the model full stop. Even for the higher end, as I understand it Specialized did the shaping of the Venge with McLaren and then handed over this design to Merida who did the R&D into how to lay up the shapes to make a bike that would ride well.
This is all off topic, so I still stand by newbies should buy the bike they like to look at at a price they are comfortable spending. Over £500-£600 it will not be the bike that determines if the OP takes to cycling or not.
Except that isn't the case. Specialized have their own team in California that do all the design and development and in turn specs are passed to the OEM. This is the same with Merida who make their own bikes with a completely different design team. This includes choice of materials (grades of carbon and alu) used although they will work with the factory for material design and recommendation. You can see this in Specialized's video regarding the Venge: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1mrv1uU5kE
You forget that Merida don't own Spec, they only have a 49% share whereas Mike Sinyard still owns the rest. Specialized built a wind tunnel in Cali. It's not Merida owned, nor is it based in Taiwan.
This Scott video shows how brands work with fabs to create unique designs and manufacturing processes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7wdes1DM5Y
If you equate the cycling world to say snowboards, then it's easier to see the similarities. Jarden own both K2 and Ride and even the factory (Shakespeare fab in China), yet all development is done independently and the materials and manufacturing processes are unique. Elan's Austria fab is the largest snowboard fab in the world and they manufacture for much of the market. Again, the materials and processes are unique (like cycling, snowboard brands tend to prototype in house).
It's the brands that drive the fabs, not vice-versa.English Cycles V3 | Cervelo P5 | Cervelo T4 | Trek Domane Koppenberg0 -
Carbonator wrote:Its funny that the 'its just a frame and two' wheels point of view seems to be used in favour of cheaper bikes and yet sugest what is basically just a normal (not overly 'aggressive') road bike and sudenly small differences are used to say its unsuitable for someone we do not know much about.
Hope this thread has been more helpful than your lbs (who just wanted to sell you what they had it sounds) you find a good bike that you do not regret buying op ;-)
You will learn most about what suits you only after riding your first bike but I hope you are not too far out.
For my part in the debate I don't think I said the Focus, for which you supported the reccomendation, is unsuitable (apart form the Winter bike bit). I just dont think, personally, your reasons for reccomending it are particulalry valid.
If you read back I didnt give any specific reason for the bike reccomendations I made other than, in my opinion, they were an example of what fitted the purchasing briefs I suggested.
I am not trying to snipe at your opinions mearly discussing (as in Discussion Forums) alternative viewpoints.
Regardless, as you alude to the OP will either love, hate or be indifferent about cycling when they start but the result will be inlikely to be solely due to the bike they choose.Coach H. (Dont ask me for training advice - 'It's not about the bike')0 -
The Cayo Evo does have more aggressive geometry, but it's not as though it couldn't be easily made to comfortably fit the majority of people. The upside, is that as the rider increases their strength and flexibility they can grow into the bike and start to remove spacers under the stem etc, which is obvioulsy not an option with a bike with a tall head tube to begin with. The bars the bike comes with are semi-compact, it has a compact chainset, the handling is neutral, it rides compliantly but reacts great under power, it's light, it has fully integrated cabling and it has a five year warrantee.
I have a Cayo Evo myself, so I can vouch for it's quality. I've been using mine all the way through winter fitted with full-length Crud Road Racer 2 mudguards, which fit fine as long as you chop off a couple of inches near the BB (a 30sec. job with a hacksaw).
I don't see any downsides IMO, as long as the OP doesn't have such poor flexibility that they should think twice about buying a road bike with dropped bars anyway.0 -
More aggresive geometary than what?
Your view on the Cayo sums it up very well imo btw ;-)0 -
Grill wrote:Coach H wrote:Grill, this is all great and pertinent info. My only comment is that the thread is about top end Al or low end CF. Therefore is not the reality that the R&D Depts of the 'BRANDS' will not have anything to do with this sector of the market? The OEM's will do all this work on behalf of the brand. Particularly as they have all the manufacturing expertise.
To use Specialized as probably the best example; for this part of the market Merida, as the OEM, will do all the design and configuration and will probably also create the specification for the model. It also would not surprise me if Spesh don't even sign off on it and Merida present it to them as the model full stop. Even for the higher end, as I understand it Specialized did the shaping of the Venge with McLaren and then handed over this design to Merida who did the R&D into how to lay up the shapes to make a bike that would ride well.
This is all off topic, so I still stand by newbies should buy the bike they like to look at at a price they are comfortable spending. Over £500-£600 it will not be the bike that determines if the OP takes to cycling or not.
Except that isn't the case. Specialized have their own team in California that do all the design and development and in turn specs are passed to the OEM. This is the same with Merida who make their own bikes with a completely different design team. This includes choice of materials (grades of carbon and alu) used although they will work with the factory for material design and recommendation. You can see this in Specialized's video regarding the Venge: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1mrv1uU5kE
You forget that Merida don't own Spec, they only have a 49% share whereas Mike Sinyard still owns the rest. Specialized built a wind tunnel in Cali. It's not Merida owned, nor is it based in Taiwan.
This Scott video shows how brands work with fabs to create unique designs and manufacturing processes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7wdes1DM5Y
It's the brands that drive the fabs, not vice-versa.
Think we have our wires crossed.
I never suggested that Merida own Spec and I certainly didn't forget. Do the Spec R&D in California really do the materials engineering? They may do concept/shaping/aero/paint design stuff but, as the OEM with all the actual manufacturing knowledge, surely Merida do all the materials engineering? Is this not why the Cervelo Project California is only made in very small numbers by the R&D guys, because the OEM cannot produce by mainstream manufacturing methods?
(Can't view YouTube on this PC so dont know if the clips answer queries and cannot remember from watching them in the past)Coach H. (Dont ask me for training advice - 'It's not about the bike')0 -
No, Spec do the prototyping. Scott (in the link) and Cervelo also prototype in-house (among others) and from there mass production is undertaken at the fab. If you look at Cervelo's 2014 line you'll see that the tech from the R5Ca has trickled down to other products in the line.English Cycles V3 | Cervelo P5 | Cervelo T4 | Trek Domane Koppenberg0
-
Coach H wrote:As someone 'new to this' the OP is unlikely to be able to maintain a particularly shallow torso angle. Therefore unless they have proportionally long legs, short torso, long arms for their height it is unlikely that this, admittedly well priced bike for the spec and a good spot, bike will fit them for the intended purpose without tinkering such as a shorter and /or flipped stem and shorter than optimal exposed seat post.
Does not take full guards so could never be an excellent winter bike, i think.Carbonator wrote:Something like the Focus mentioned above would be my recomendation.
Should be a nice ride, would make an exellent winter/second bike if the op really got into cycling, and would be easy to re sell at not too big a hit if the need arose.
Good option but possibly not for the OP, IMHO
What would be optimal amount of seat post showing?
The seat post height is defined by leg length so how does his physical prowess or lack of affect this?
The focus has quite a sloping top tube so unless he got too big a frame size it would have a lot of seat post showing anyway wouldn't it?
So do you buy a summer bike with full guard mounts just for when you demote it to a winter bike?
What makes a good winter bike is a/that you enjoy riding it, and b/that you are not as fussed about it getting dirty
0 -
I would not say that I am completely new to the riding scene as in my younger days I used to own a graham Tomlinson hand built bike with dura ace group set, and my old cycle club used to do 80-100 mile rides on a sunday.
But now a good twenty years have past and I am now doing 30 miles plus on an old al mountain bike which is about fifteen years old and I feel that I am getting the bug again.
so the type of bike im after is one which I can do the 80 - 100 mile a day touch (eventually) but I have also been told that I have an aggressive riding stance, which I presume is a race position rather than a more up right postion.
My current mountain bike has a slanted top tube, exteneded handle bar stem with about 225 mm of seat post showing as well as a modified 50 tooth chain ring chain0 -
Grill wrote:a comprehensive reply!
Thanks for that considered and detailed reply. I think I'm basically very much the cynic though. I don't believe that there is any reason for the Pinarello wobbly forks other than that they serve as a design distinction. Similarly, I doubt there is much in the Specialized Zertz inserts. I get tired of bike companies going on about the ultra stiffness of their new frame when I know that me, light as I am (and light as many pro riders) doesn't really want a frame that has no compliance at all because really, in truth, the degree of stiffness that we might want from a frame is as much a function as the sort of riding we do as it is a function of our own weight. The need for stiffness in a frame is proportional to our weight yet for all the research the bike companies do, this is rarely recognised.
We never made much of a big deal about "technology" where steel bike frames were concerned - probably because the technology was recognised as mature and there was never so much you could do to evolve it. Perhaps carbon bikes aren't so far behind now - only we don't recognise it because it is so easy to invent a new shape that the bike companies (in my cynical mind) can pretend really makes a difference. But in reality, even if there is a difference, chances are only a small proportion of the buying public are really going to notice it and even then, mostly only in direct comparison to another bike (which really means nothing at all) and even fewer are going to make some tangible use of that benefit.
I'm not saying that the research doesn't have any real value itself - just that I don't think it necessarily results in one particular bike being identifiably superior to another. In reality, that research effectively benefits everyone - without it all bikes would be worse - with it all are better because the researching company isn't really able to keep the benefits of it to itself.
Personally, I prefer a bike from a company that does have credibility beyond sticking a name on a bought in frame but I don't think that means that the latter frame is necessarily inferior in any practical sense.Faster than a tent.......0 -
That all sounds about right to me Rolf.
So what do you think the OP (assuming he is average age and fitness for someone looking to get into road cycling) should get out of a fully Zerted Specialized or more standard geometry Focus Cayo?
Or would either be as good?0 -
Littleleg5 wrote:I would not say that I am completely new to the riding scene as in my younger days I used to own a graham Tomlinson hand built bike with dura ace group set, and my old cycle club used to do 80-100 mile rides on a sunday.
so the type of bike im after is one which I can do the 80 - 100 mile a day touch (eventually) but I have also been told that I have an aggressive riding stance, which I presume is a race position rather than a more up right postion.
Sounds to me that the Cayo would suit you down to the ground in that case. The proof as always though, is in the riding. But I don't think the 2013 models hang around for long at the discounted prices as the 2014 frame is identical, with only minor componentry changes.0 -
DKay wrote:Littleleg5 wrote:I would not say that I am completely new to the riding scene as in my younger days I used to own a graham Tomlinson hand built bike with dura ace group set, and my old cycle club used to do 80-100 mile rides on a sunday.
so the type of bike im after is one which I can do the 80 - 100 mile a day touch (eventually) but I have also been told that I have an aggressive riding stance, which I presume is a race position rather than a more up right postion.
Sounds to me that the Cayo would suit you down to the ground in that case. The proof as always though, is in the riding. But I don't think the 2013 models hang around for long at the discounted prices as the 2014 frame is identical, with only minor componentry changes.
BOOM Cayo wins
You might find the Focus comes up a little smaller than say a Cannondale (not that I am encouraging you to get a big frame) which might be worth bearing in mind if you did want to try one and they only had certain sizes left.0 -
Rolf F wrote:Grill wrote:a comprehensive reply!
Thanks for that considered and detailed reply. I think I'm basically very much the cynic though. I don't believe that there is any reason for the Pinarello wobbly forks other than that they serve as a design distinction. Similarly, I doubt there is much in the Specialized Zertz inserts. I get tired of bike companies going on about the ultra stiffness of their new frame when I know that me, light as I am (and light as many pro riders) doesn't really want a frame that has no compliance at all because really, in truth, the degree of stiffness that we might want from a frame is as much a function as the sort of riding we do as it is a function of our own weight. The need for stiffness in a frame is proportional to our weight yet for all the research the bike companies do, this is rarely recognised.
We never made much of a big deal about "technology" where steel bike frames were concerned - probably because the technology was recognised as mature and there was never so much you could do to evolve it. Perhaps carbon bikes aren't so far behind now - only we don't recognise it because it is so easy to invent a new shape that the bike companies (in my cynical mind) can pretend really makes a difference. But in reality, even if there is a difference, chances are only a small proportion of the buying public are really going to notice it and even then, mostly only in direct comparison to another bike (which really means nothing at all) and even fewer are going to make some tangible use of that benefit.
I'm not saying that the research doesn't have any real value itself - just that I don't think it necessarily results in one particular bike being identifiably superior to another. In reality, that research effectively benefits everyone - without it all bikes would be worse - with it all are better because the researching company isn't really able to keep the benefits of it to itself.
Personally, I prefer a bike from a company that does have credibility beyond sticking a name on a bought in frame but I don't think that means that the latter frame is necessarily inferior in any practical sense.
Most of the change and innovation that happens to bicycles is due to trying to eek out those incremental gains in the pro peloton. Sure, I don't necessarily think that it's a true reflection of the market, but I find it hard to believe that the changes are made strictly from a marketing standpoint. As punters do most of these changes make a real difference for us? Maybe not, but it's still nice to have the tech and the engineering behind it.
When I worked in the Alpes I tested snowboards. I rode dozens each each season and within one run could pinpoint the characteristics and nuances of each. If I only rode a couple a season would I have that ability? Nope, so I wouldn't expect most to be as discerning as me. What I learned from selling them is that 95% of people would be happy with 95% of boards as long as they liked the graphics. I think this holds true to most consumer products, but it's nice to know that the other 5% are well catered for.English Cycles V3 | Cervelo P5 | Cervelo T4 | Trek Domane Koppenberg0 -
Off topic - How long have planet X been using Sarto? Suprised to see it, doesnt fit their usual business model
http://www.planetx.co.uk/i/q/CBPXMON680 ... -road-bike
http://www.planetx.co.uk/i/q/FRSAHMCARR ... e-and-fork0 -
davidwilcock wrote:Off topic - How long have planet X been using Sarto? Suprised to see it, doesnt fit their usual business model
http://www.planetx.co.uk/i/q/CBPXMON680 ... -road-bike
http://www.planetx.co.uk/i/q/FRSAHMCARR ... e-and-fork
The Mondo has been available for a few years, it is their top end bike that some of the sponsored Gran Fondo team use in Italy.0
![https://veloviewer.com/SigImage/15e386/4/5/I/p/bhcdefghij.png[/IMG][/URL]](/home/leaving?allowTrusted=1&target=https%3A%2F%2Fveloviewer.com%2FSigImage%2F15e386%2F4%2F5%2FI%2Fp%2Fbhcdefghij.png%5B%2FIMG%5D%5B%2FURL%5D){kind=link}