frame vs components

Mccrear

looking to buy a £1000-£1500 bike but am i better buying an ok frame with good components (planet x ultegra, virus ultegra, merckx emx -105) or a "better" frame with component mix? (pinarello, cannondale, giant - all with tiagra mix). i know the stock answer of try them out etc, but most deals are online so unlikely to get a chance to do that. am i better to get something upgradeable, so something which is at its peak, so to speak.

advice welcomed.

Monty Dog

Sink the most money into the frame and wheels - you can more easily upgrade parts as they wear-out.

Grill

Frame. Always the frame.

kajjal

It depends how likely you are to upgrade things really. If like most people you are not likely to upgrade things then get the best overall bike. If you are likely to upgrade either as things wear out or once you know more what you want then invest more in the frame as it makes a good base for a series of upgrades. I knew with my first road bike few upgrades were likely so just got the best overall bike.

Bozman

Frame

ai_1

Kajjal wrote:

It depends how likely you are to upgrade things really. If like most people you are not likely to upgrade things then get the best overall bike. If you are likely to upgrade either as things wear out or once you know more what you want then invest more in the frame as it makes a good base for a series of upgrades. I knew with my first road bike few upgrades were likely so just got the best overall bike.

This^^^

If your budget doesn't allow you buy the bike you want, then get one you can turn into that over time. Otherwise get the best complete package. No point in riding around for the next year or two on a bike you consider unfinished!
So if you intend to upgrade put the money in the frame. Otherwise it depends on your priorities. If you don't feel the need for minimal weight and 11 speeds then Tiagra and 105 will both do fine. Otherwise find something with Ultegra but that will probably leave you with a more basic frame and cheap wheels.
Very few bikes are sold in their standard spec with decent wheels.
If you need to compromise on either wheels or groupset, I'd compromise on wheels. Why? Because although they have a much bigger impact on performance, cheaper wheels are cheaper than cheap groupset, are easy to replace and you may want to have a cheap backup wheelset anyway (in case good wheels are in for repair, for turbo trainer use, alternative cassette if you ride very different terrain occasionally). Replacing your groupset is a much bigger job, a spare groupset won't be much use to you and it's worth more so a bigger waste of your initial outlay if you do replace it..

dwanes

A frame is a frame, it really doesn't do a lot for you. If a similar kind of weight, a £2000 frame will not make you any faster or be any more comfortable than a £600 frame.

Where as components and wheels can improve fairly significantly as you start going up in price and make your ride a more 'pleasant' experience. eg sora or tiagra vs ultegra. or Shimano R500 vs Ultegra wheelset.

So I would go with components.

mfin

It is all to do with whether you will upgrade much, and in most cases the upgrades go as far as new wheels, tyres and tubes. Most bikes come with sub-standard wheels for the price (Canyon seem to be more of an exception).

So at £1500, if I wanted a bike that I did not want to be spending more on in future I would probably buy a £1250 bike and put a £250 wheelset on it. In fact, maybe £350 but selling off the ones that came with it for a few quid, any low-end back wheel is good for putting on a turbo for example, so will sell. This should get you the best bike for £1500, particularly if you stick to makes which offer great value (or makes where you also know the wheels will be good or you can choose the wheels at the point of buying).

If you don't mind upgrading later, then just budget in new wheels at a later date, this will cover most people.

(If you think you will upgrade more than just wheels, then simply look for the best frame you can get and spend the very least on components as you want the frame to be worthy of groupset upgrades as well as wheels).

The best complete bike you can get for £1500 will always be a well found second-hand one that's barely used that someone bought and never took up cycling, you might then find something that someone paid something like £2500 for and has not used if you find the right thing from the right person at the right time.

You can trash all this though simply by buying a bike that doesn't fit, and with road bikes, fit is crucial.

Mccaria

I think it comes down to how comfortable you are that you know the frame size you need and that the fit is right for you.

After a few years away from road riding my first bike back was the basic Planet X carbon frame fitted out with full dura ace. After 18 months my shape had changed (less around the middle), I was more flexible and I had a better idea of the type of cycling I wanted to do. At that point I bought a new frame and moved all the components over.

So my advice is that if you are very sure that the geometry of the frame is right for you, put the money into the frame. If you are less sure then maybe focus more on the components.

Bar Shaker

The bike cost will pretty much be split between frame, groupset and wheels/components.

Try to find a bike where no one of these three is letting the rest down. Look for the best all round compromises.

Spending £2000 on an excellent frame and rubbish wheels/groupset will mean you end up spending £4000 to get the bike you thought you were buying.

LegendLust

dwanes wrote:

A frame is a frame, it really doesn't do a lot for you. If a similar kind of weight, a £2000 frame will not make you any faster or be any more comfortable than a £600 frame.

Where as components and wheels can improve fairly significantly as you start going up in price and make your ride a more 'pleasant' experience. eg sora or tiagra vs ultegra. or Shimano R500 vs Ultegra wheelset.

So I would go with components.

Really?

drlodge

LegendLust wrote:

dwanes wrote:

A frame is a frame, it really doesn't do a lot for you. If a similar kind of weight, a £2000 frame will not make you any faster or be any more comfortable than a £600 frame.

Where as components and wheels can improve fairly significantly as you start going up in price and make your ride a more 'pleasant' experience. eg sora or tiagra vs ultegra. or Shimano R500 vs Ultegra wheelset.

So I would go with components.

Really?

Indeed :shock:

I guess a frame is a frame, to the extent that a car chassis is a car chassis. May be the choice of material is less important than the geometry and the fit, but the frame defines a bike and no matter what upgrades you later do, the frame will remain. Consider - if you replaced the frame, would you still have the same bike, or a different bike?

I would personally get the best frame I can afford or that you need (I don't need a £5k custom made c/f frame). A better/lighter frame will be more resilient and handle better. Think about this - a lighter frame will have thinner walled construction, and this gives a "nicer" ride. A good steel frame will give a much nicer/livlier ride than the same frame made out of scaffold poles. Same materials (steel) and geometry, only difference is the "weight" i.e. thinner walls.

To go with the frame, I would personally go for components that are "adequate", and a cheap set of wheels. Then get a second pair of good wheels and relegate the originals to winter/training use.

dwanes

yes Really!

Do you think you could 'blind test' a 'cheapish' frame vs an 'expensiveish' frame, and tell the difference? NO WAY.

Come on, tell me why a £2000 frame is so much better than a £600 frame?

Lets take a De Rosa Merak Evolution Carbon Frameset £2000 Vs Kenesis Racelight Aithein frameset £600

drlodge

dwanes wrote:

yes Really!

Do you think you could 'blind test' a 'cheapish' frame vs an 'expensiveish' frame, and tell the difference? NO WAY.

Come on, tell me why a £2000 frame is so much better than a £600 frame?

Lets take a De Rosa Merak Evolution Carbon Frameset £2000 Vs Kenesis Racelight Aithein frameset £600

Well blind testing a frame is going to be tricky! I doubt I could tell the difference on a short ride on a good surface. But over 100 miles and rough tarmac I bet I could. But then I can't ride 100 miles blind folded.

I can tell the difference between my Condor 531 Pro and Rourke 953 quite easily, they are both steel except the Rourke has a carbon fork. Its like driving a Cortina compared to a Bentley.

dwanes

drlodge wrote:

dwanes wrote:

yes Really!

Do you think you could 'blind test' a 'cheapish' frame vs an 'expensiveish' frame, and tell the difference? NO WAY.

Come on, tell me why a £2000 frame is so much better than a £600 frame?

Lets take a De Rosa Merak Evolution Carbon Frameset £2000 Vs Kenesis Racelight Aithein frameset £600

Well blind testing a frame is going to be tricky! I doubt I could tell the difference on a short ride on a good surface. But over 100 miles and rough tarmac I bet I could. But then I can't ride 100 miles blind folded.

I can tell the difference between my Condor 531 Pro and Rourke 953 quite easily, they are both steel except the Rourke has a carbon fork. Its like driving a Cortina compared to a Bentley.

Of course you can tell the difference between two framesets!! but that is not the point I was making. I am talking about the difference in prices of framesets and why more expensive doesnt mean better.

You could find a cheapish frameset which would feel like a Maybach in comparison.

Mccrear

cheers for all the advice guys. found some great deals, but wary of getting a name or being suckered into a good deal and then doesnt suit me. can do all the measurements you want, until i sit on it i wont know. i suppose thats the trade off. found this, might try it but probably chicken out cos i am a coward when it comes to spending cash!! (scottish)

http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/eddy ... -prod92971

LegendLust

dwanes wrote:

drlodge wrote:

dwanes wrote:

yes Really!

Do you think you could 'blind test' a 'cheapish' frame vs an 'expensiveish' frame, and tell the difference? NO WAY.

Come on, tell me why a £2000 frame is so much better than a £600 frame?

Lets take a De Rosa Merak Evolution Carbon Frameset £2000 Vs Kenesis Racelight Aithein frameset £600

Well blind testing a frame is going to be tricky! I doubt I could tell the difference on a short ride on a good surface. But over 100 miles and rough tarmac I bet I could. But then I can't ride 100 miles blind folded.

I can tell the difference between my Condor 531 Pro and Rourke 953 quite easily, they are both steel except the Rourke has a carbon fork. Its like driving a Cortina compared to a Bentley.

Could you go back and re-read your posts cos you aint making sense

Of course you can tell the difference between two framesets!! but that is not the point I was making. I am talking about the difference in prices of framesets and why more expensive doesnt mean better.

You could find a cheapish frameset which would feel like a Maybach in comparison.

Bozman

dwanes wrote:

drlodge wrote:

dwanes wrote:

yes Really!

Do you think you could 'blind test' a 'cheapish' frame vs an 'expensiveish' frame, and tell the difference? NO WAY.

Come on, tell me why a £2000 frame is so much better than a £600 frame?

Lets take a De Rosa Merak Evolution Carbon Frameset £2000 Vs Kenesis Racelight Aithein frameset £600

Well blind testing a frame is going to be tricky! I doubt I could tell the difference on a short ride on a good surface. But over 100 miles and rough tarmac I bet I could. But then I can't ride 100 miles blind folded.

I can tell the difference between my Condor 531 Pro and Rourke 953 quite easily, they are both steel except the Rourke has a carbon fork. Its like driving a Cortina compared to a Bentley.

Of course you can tell the difference between two framesets!! but that is not the point I was making. I am talking about the difference in prices of framesets and why more expensive doesnt mean better.

You could find a cheapish frameset which would feel like a Maybach in comparison.

I've got a six year old Look that blows my Scott CR1 out of the water, recently I've had a Madone, an Izalco, a Bianchi and a Viner none could touch it apart from the Viner so I'd say that you generally get what you pay for.

dwanes

LegendLust wrote:

dwanes wrote:

drlodge wrote:

dwanes wrote:

yes Really!

Do you think you could 'blind test' a 'cheapish' frame vs an 'expensiveish' frame, and tell the difference? NO WAY.

Come on, tell me why a £2000 frame is so much better than a £600 frame?

Lets take a De Rosa Merak Evolution Carbon Frameset £2000 Vs Kenesis Racelight Aithein frameset £600

Well blind testing a frame is going to be tricky! I doubt I could tell the difference on a short ride on a good surface. But over 100 miles and rough tarmac I bet I could. But then I can't ride 100 miles blind folded.

I can tell the difference between my Condor 531 Pro and Rourke 953 quite easily, they are both steel except the Rourke has a carbon fork. Its like driving a Cortina compared to a Bentley.

Could you go back and re-read your posts cos you aint making sense

Of course you can tell the difference between two framesets!! but that is not the point I was making. I am talking about the difference in prices of framesets and why more expensive doesnt mean better.

You could find a cheapish frameset which would feel like a Maybach in comparison.

When I said
'Do you think you could 'blind test' a 'cheapish' frame vs an 'expensiveish' frame, and tell the difference? NO WAY'

I maybe should have said: could you tell which was the expensive one and which was the cheapish one.

markhewitt1978

Monty Dog wrote:

Sink the most money into the frame and wheels - you can more easily upgrade parts as they wear-out.

Agreed, but I would also add that the majority of bikes come with very average wheelsets, most would benefit from an upgrade. If I was buying a bike now I would essentially think of the wheels as disposable.

MisterMuncher

dwanes wrote:

LegendLust wrote:

dwanes wrote:

drlodge wrote:

dwanes wrote:

yes Really!

Do you think you could 'blind test' a 'cheapish' frame vs an 'expensiveish' frame, and tell the difference? NO WAY.

Come on, tell me why a £2000 frame is so much better than a £600 frame?

Lets take a De Rosa Merak Evolution Carbon Frameset £2000 Vs Kenesis Racelight Aithein frameset £600

Well blind testing a frame is going to be tricky! I doubt I could tell the difference on a short ride on a good surface. But over 100 miles and rough tarmac I bet I could. But then I can't ride 100 miles blind folded.

I can tell the difference between my Condor 531 Pro and Rourke 953 quite easily, they are both steel except the Rourke has a carbon fork. Its like driving a Cortina compared to a Bentley.

Could you go back and re-read your posts cos you aint making sense

Of course you can tell the difference between two framesets!! but that is not the point I was making. I am talking about the difference in prices of framesets and why more expensive doesnt mean better.

You could find a cheapish frameset which would feel like a Maybach in comparison.

When I said
'Do you think you could 'blind test' a 'cheapish' frame vs an 'expensiveish' frame, and tell the difference? NO WAY'

I maybe should have said: could you tell which was the expensive one and which was the cheapish one.

Outside of some obviously overpriced badge engineered open mould frames, I reckon that wouldn't present much difficulty.

dwanes

What frames would these be? and how could you tell?

mr_evil

drlodge wrote:

Well blind testing a frame is going to be tricky!..

There have been a few blind tests of frames that I have seen. For instance in "Bicycle Guide" in 1996. It's not particularly rigorous, but interesting nonetheless.

MisterMuncher

dwanes wrote:

What frames would these be? and how could you tell?

I read. I take an interest. I tend to remember shapes that crop up time and again, so I know when I see a distinctly open-mouldish looking frame. I can gauge weight reasonably well. It's not a guarantee of inferiority by any means, but an open moulder in a flash finish would set alarm bells ringing. Sometimes I'd be wrong. Ritte bikes, for example, are of an open-mould design, but they're by all accounts fantastic. They're also pretty pricey. Conversely. there's no denying there's a few high-performance bargains out there, but they're very rare. Why would a company willingly charge less than the market will obviously bear? Charity?

Let me put it another way, What are these superior yet much cheaper frames? I'm keen on, oh, say, a Supersix Evo himod. What's the cheaper 700g frame with comparable stiffness metrics and the same geometry? Why aren't these being used by amateur racers all over the place, if they really are better and cheaper? The only possible explanations are that they don't really exist, or everyone bar yourself is an idiot.

Grill

Ritte are Hong Fu with a paint job. Don't get suckered in to paying over the odds to pay for someone's marketing budget.

MisterMuncher

Possibly a poor example, but I think you get what I'm driving at.

keef66

For a first bike I'd aim for a balanced build / spec and make sure it's got some decent tyres. No point in having a £1k frameset if it's held back by heavy, flexy wheels and wooden tyres, or of having a gas pipe frame with Dura-Ace Di2. No point either in buying an off the shelf bike and immediately replacing most of the components.

I bought mine from Epic. They helped me choose the right bike, then I got to choose every component. Apart from consumables like chains, tyres and gear cables in 6 years I've changed nothing but the saddle. Probably the most rational, carefully thought out purchase I'll ever make.

Grill

+1 for Epic.