Higher end frames worth it?
focuz
Posts: 150
Currently have a planet x, whilst still great just wondering what the difference in ride between that and something like a domane or giant etc. £600 vs £1000+. The treks and many others have great reviews from many websites, but any real difference in ride or speed? if any of you guys have both ends or have tried them. May be facing a size upgrade soon!
0
Posts
I was on two cycling holidays last year and knew I'd be looking at buying a new bike in the near future so i used the opportunities to hire bikes that were on my shortlist. Glad I did since I think I now have a fair idea what to expect. They were 2k to 2.5k bikes and I did find them much more fun to ride than my own 1k bike but it was still cycling!
P.S. I'm no expert and I'm probably just telling you stuff you already know but I wasn't going to let that stop me!
Convincing themselves that there is no point spending any more than the exact amount they spent :roll:
Just go and test ride a different bike and see. No one can tell you if another bike is better/worth more money.
It also depends on how you are quantifying 'worth it'
Whats worth it to you might not be to someone else, and visa versa.
Generally speaking, the more expensive frame/bike will be better though, and cost should only be taken into account when its your purchase, not someone else's
What a lot you can read into the innocent words of the OP.
I tend to agree with "carbo..". With the exception of "...more expensive frame/bike will be better..". No one knows this :roll: . It could be the worst thing you ever paid good money for.
As for the OP asking about speed. No faster. Unless you get stronger.
As for the OP asking about ride. No again. That's mostly the territory of tires and air pressure.
On the good news side this expensive bike / frame will most likely be very showoff / blingy / pretty / unique.
In short, a beautiful bike but you'll still get dropped.
My Roubaix was a "low end" Elite frame (bike RRP was @ £1,700 although I certainly didn't pay that much for it on a end of season close-out deal). The RRP of the CR1 SL frameset alone was (I think) £2,200 as it was their top of the line Hi Modulus HMX carbon layup. Again I paid nothing like that amount. As I say, the frame feel much stiffer, but still compliant over rougher surfaces, Im certainly faster on it. How much of that is down to the frame quality, the fact that this frame build fits me better, or the fact that I feel incredibly smug very time I get on the thing, I don't know.
It is a better frame, but whether it's £000's better I'm not so sure. Having read that all back, I'm not sure that helps the OP at all :oops:
Cheers guys, i know it won't make much of a difference in speed, but'll look a lot cooler;)
Acctually been looking at that scott with ultegra Di2 for £1300 or so, is it comfortable over long rides?
When it does eventually does fail I won't hesitate to spend(if the wife lets me) a few grand on another Look or maybe a something similar.
Saying that I now ride a Dogma and it's the best frame I've ever had - super stiff but still comfortable. I guess that's what you pay the cash for. My Trek's were always stiff but after a couple of hours the lack of compliance would show.
I read somewhere that out of the 3 frame characteristics you would need you can only pick 2
Stiff
Light
Comfortable
All IMHO of course
But I have to agree with Carbonator.
I was talking about his first two sentences.
Thor Hushovd thought it was high end enough to use eg in the TdF, Paris Roubaix etc.
http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/tech/200 ... ok_hushovd
http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/road/200 ... shovd-look
I'll never sell my 585 - it is quite something. Funnily enough though, it doesn't make me feel that my Ribble is poor in comparison. In that respect, the massive cost of the Look over the Ribble wasn't worth it. But I've never had a moments regret owning the Look.
Funnily enough, when I test rode a 585, I also tried a Scott CR1 (Team I think) and found it efficient but dull in comparison. Now I have a Wesbrook CR1 SL frame (which retails at 2k - about the same as the 585) it will be interesting to see how it compares with both the Look and the Ribble when I finally get round to building it up.
I have a strong feeling that I'll still prefer the Look but the interesting one will be how it compares to the much heavier Ribble. I wouldn't put much money on that one either way.
Same wheels?
Same groupset?
Same setup?
Unless the answer is yes, and I doubt it ever is, then the difference felt is probably a combination of the four elements and it's very hard to determine which has most influence.
Get a very average bottle of wine, tell people it's an expensive bottle from a prestigious vinyard and a good year and they're far more likely to think they like it - and I think wine's easier to judge than how "good" a bike is.
We're easy to fool.
- And those who think we're not are the easiest to fool of all!
Funnily enough I feel exactly the same way about my 565 (alu/carbon rahter than ti/carbon). Despite what others are writing about placebo effects, you can immediately feel the difference between that bike & other frames (including some expensive ones, not just cheap ones although the difference is more acute more often). It just feels so plush. I was skeptical at first, was going to buy another Ribble, rode this (not knowing much about Look or even if it was very desirable - I only knew their pedals) but I was sold after 5 minutes. I know there must be other great frames out there too of course, and I fully accept that cost isn't the only factor. For one thing you can pick up some great used frames of e-bay, my 565 was an ex- demonstrator & some budget frames are better than others (I like planet x). TBH many mainstream brands at full RRP are not good value - better going for used quality or direct sell budget.
I do feel that it is a personal matter, the look of the frame and the brand to that rider counts for a lot. As an example I ride a Trek Madone, prior to that my main bike was a Domane. I saved up for the Madone and paid cash for it. In total just about £3k spent which is an awful lot of money to me - so I get an awful lot of personal satisfaction every time I ride the bike. I'm lucky in that I get to ride a lot, but every ride I absolutely love, and the feeling that I saved up and bought the bike I wanted forms part of the enjoyment factor.
That being said, I rode a Rose bike last year. It was a bike that would be considered lower down the food chain than others I have been on, however I would say that felt like a really good bike. I didn't ride it on my usual routes so can't compare PBs against my other bikes, but I have to say it felt like a fast bike. It could have been placebo, from riding around Lincolnshire flats in the nice weather, but hard to say.
Last October / November, I then was in a position when looking at a new bike. I wanted something racier than my Domane but at the time the Madone seemed too expensive. So I purchased a Giant TCR 1. I just didn't like it. I had it a month, rode it a fair amount, but it just felt dead. I then went to my local Trek store and went out on the Madone I always wanted - it seemed like night and day difference. So decided to sell the Giant and purchased the Madone. Looking back now, there was probably no real difference in the frames but I finally purchased the bike I actually wanted.
Bit of long way of saying, I would say mainly placebo. But that placebo might be worth it if you can afford it. After all, my riding is about enjoyment more than an additional 0.5kph.
+1
A new bike looks faster, feels faster, and probably is faster in the short term, because you love it and are excited about riding it fast.
But is it really any faster? Unlikely.
Cue glowing 'my new bike is 4mph faster' type reviews as we've just seen (and dissected) on 'Your Bikes'.
I have only ever had 2 road frames; a 2002 to 2012 Trek 5900 OCLV a la Armstrong. Light for it's time, (1250g) but flexy compared to my current SL4 Sworks, which is noticeably stiffer and lighter. (950g)
No one's brought up fit but a bike that fits is as important as stiffness, handling, weight, road feel, and looks. People's first bikes are rarely their favourite b/c so many of them were too big/small before we had a clue about our ideal size. My 1984 Raleigh Grand Prix was massive for me.
I will say there are people in the industry who know how to lay up carbon and those who do not. I believe in the principle that if you go to e.g. Crumpton or Parlee and ask for a custom rig with a specific road feel, they'll make you you something you'll enjoy more than a Deng-Fu, Trigon or PX Nano, because it is measurable better to you.
It's too bad there are not more blind bike tests - Tour magazine tested 6 bikes covered in butcher's paper several years ago and it was interesting reading...
So the obvious things you get (sometimes) if you spend more are still lighter weight combined with stiffness.
Where it becomes more contentious and subjective is the whole area of ride feel and "comfort". I'm still not 100% convinced that these are real properties of a frame independent of overall stiffness, geometry, and the wheels, tyres and seatpost that are fitted. A flexy frame certainly has a different feel to a stiff one, and some people prefer it. Pedalling when seated feels a little more fluid (whereas a really stiff frame can feel a bit dead if you are not used to it), but when you get out of the saddle and stomp hard on the pedals to get over a small hill you can feel your energy being wasted in flexing the frame. Personally I hate that, but there is an extremely subtle line between a little too much flex (bad) and a tiny bit of "zing" (good).
I've always suspected that there is an ideal frame stiffness for every rider, depending on weight, fitness and riding style.
regrds
ILG
+1
Nearly all UK and French magazine tests I read are incredibly repetitive and boring, with no science involved at all. The classic phrases are trotted out all the time, 'stiff yet compliant', 'hills were no problem' or '15% more aero - (we're told)'.
We need blind frame tests on the same wheels, with some proper testing thrown in.
The German mags are good at this, but unfortunately I don't speak German, and there is an Australian mag who's name I forget, that does very good, comprehensive bike tests.
Still, it must be very hard for any magazine to say much in a negative way about anything simply because saying as much might, or most likely would, have an effect on advertising revenue.