Higher end frames worth it?

focuz

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!

ai_1

Focuz wrote:

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!

There's a lot of factors to consider especially what your criteria for judging are but even more problematic is that this is going to be VERY subjective. if you get the chance take a test ride or hire a bike of the type/level you have in mind and judge for yourself. In my opinion the ride and performance improvements are largely psychological and they're definitely not proportional to the money spent - diminishing returns and all that. However, that doesn't mean you shouldn't look at getting a higher end bike - just have realistic expectations.
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!

Crozza

a new bike is always worth it

Anonymous

Is this another one of those posts where people just want to feel good and smug about the cheaper thing that they bought?
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

bondurant

Does the weight of cynicism on your shoulders wear you down Carbonator?

What a lot you can read into the innocent words of the OP.

dennisn

Bondurant wrote:

Does the weight of cynicism on your shoulders wear you down Carbonator?

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.

luv2ride

Real smugness comes from those who paid very little for an expensive frame As the proud owner of a Scott "Westbrook's Special" CR1 SL frame I can say that the difference is night and day between that and the Specialized Roubaix frame it replaced.

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:

focuz

Luv2ride wrote:

Real smugness comes from those who paid very little for an expensive frame As the proud owner of a Scott "Westbrook's Special" CR1 SL frame I can say that the difference is night and day between that and the Specialized Roubaix frame it replaced.

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?

Bozman

I've owned a few frames but my 7 year old Look 585ultra has been head and shoulders above anything I have had in between, I don't know whether it was classed as high end but a hell of a lot of frames have been and gone while that has stayed.
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.

chris1967cycling

Up until a few years ago I always rode the latest and best Trek frames. I then bought a Planet X Nano light and once built up with the same kit as my best Madone inc wheels etc I honestly couldn't tell the difference between a £400 frame and a £3000 frame.

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

thegreatdivide

My C59 is in another universe compared to the Genesis Aether wet bike I slog along on.

But I have to agree with Carbonator.

bondurant

dennisn wrote:

Bondurant wrote:

Does the weight of cynicism on your shoulders wear you down Carbonator?

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.

I was talking about his first two sentences.

passout

Most of my bikes have been budget (Ribble, Regal) and mid range (Genesis, Trek, Giant) and quality of ride only varied a little. However the higher end stuff I've run (Look 565 springs to mind) was noticeably better - a nicer ride - and I kept the bike much longer so actually quite good value in a way. In terms of speed, fitness is more significant though once you are on a reliable proper bike. Worth spending money on nice frameset & wheels IMO.

StillGoing

Hell yes. My first road bike was a Trek 1.1 Alpha aluminium frame with heavy Bontrager wheels and 9 speed Tiagra. When I bought my Basso frame and built it up, the difference was immense. Some of that could be down to the geometry of the two bikes which made the Trek suddenly feel like an Audax bike and equally could be down to the higher spec components used on the Basso build. Was I faster? Yes, but only because things were suddenly lighter and the wheels rolled much better than the agricultural Bontragers. No matter what I tried, I couldn't replicate the riding position or feel of the Basso with the Trek and it eventually had to go rather than sit gathering dust because I couldn't stand using it even in crappy weather.

rolf_f

Bozman wrote:

I've owned a few frames but my 7 year old Look 585ultra has been head and shoulders above anything I have had in between, I don't know whether it was classed as high end but a hell of a lot of frames have been and gone while that has stayed.
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.

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.

littledove44

It's actually very had to quantify. People will tell you that their new expensive frame feels better than their previous one, but was it a fair comparison?

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.

ai_1

littledove44 wrote:

It's actually very had to quantify. People will tell you that their new expensive frame feels better than their previous one, but was it a fair comparison?

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.

There's also the 5th element (not the film) which is that they know the new one "should" be better and if it's theirs they also want it to be better - so in a subjective "test" the result is pretty much inevitable.

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!

Monty Dog

Depends on what you mean by high-end - a lot of price differentiation is simply down to brand perception or relatively minor changes in specification / cost that by the time they reach the shops they appear to 'better'. Between £600 and £1000 you're still looking at mass-produced frames from a big shed, somewhere in the Far East probably with only relatively minor differences in terms of materials or process.

passout

Rolf F wrote:

Bozman wrote:

I've owned a few frames but my 7 year old Look 585ultra has been head and shoulders above anything I have had in between, I don't know whether it was classed as high end but a hell of a lot of frames have been and gone while that has stayed.
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.

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.

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.

w00dster

I ride quite a lot of bikes, with my job it means I travel a lot so I do get to jump on a number of different manufacturers.
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.

bernithebiker

Ai_1 wrote:

littledove44 wrote:

It's actually very had to quantify. People will tell you that their new expensive frame feels better than their previous one, but was it a fair comparison?

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.

There's also the 5th element (not the film) which is that they know the new one "should" be better and if it's theirs they also want it to be better - so in a subjective "test" the result is pretty much inevitable.

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!

+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)

neeb

You can quantify weight and torsional stiffness, and there is some relationship between price and stiffness/weight ratio, but it's far from linear or predictable because of marketing and brand perception etc. You probably aren''t going to get a frame that is really stiff as well as really light for less than £1000. But for a little more than that it's possible to get something that's as good as something costing twice as much, and a high price is no guarantee of a good frame.

passout

I think a lot of us are using different criteria here. For me comfort is more important than stiffness for my weekend / long distance bike. Also some bikes just 'feel' nice - but that is of course entirely subjective. I know someone who only rides steel bikes for that reason. The difference may not necessarily translate into speed, but there are noticable differences. In terms of speed I agree that it won't make too much difference for most of us most of the time, unless of course you are comparing to really weighty bike over a hilly terrain perhaps.

keef66

Another £500 CR1-SL owner. I did do a head to head test by taking all the stuff off my alu bike and putting it on the Scott. Felt lighter to pick up, and it's easier to throw about, and a lot better at absorbing road buzz. Deadly boring to look at though. £500 to see what all the fuss was about? Bargain!

FransJacques

I think you need to at least ride 1 really expensive bike so you can see for yourself. This is why going to cycling hot spots like Mallorca or Rimini is great - you can rent the latest Cannondale EVo, Ridley Fenix, or Cayon SLX and see what all the hype is.

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...

neeb

Fit of course is as or more important than anything else, but if you are within the normal range of variation, know exactly what your fit is and are prepared to shop around you should be able to get something that fits in almost any price range. Handling I suspect is a function of geometry plus stiffness, and geometry again is something that is more or less price-independent.

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.

ilovegrace

Pay £1000 ish and get the best second hand bike you can.
regrds
ILG

duckson

Boardman Team Carbon to CR1 SL with the same wheelset, CR1 SL was a little quicker (as 'proved' by Strava times...)....maybe just that bit more stiffer? Not alot in it mind.

earth

Planet X SL Pro Carbon to Orbea Orca. Orca was noticeably stiffer and after 5 years of use the PX creaked and groaned more than me when going up hills and it rattled a bit over rough surfaces.

bernithebiker

FransJacques wrote:

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...

+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.

dennisn

bernithebiker wrote:

FransJacques wrote:

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...

+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.