Bargain?

philclubman

Hi all,

I'm in the market for a carbon road bike (currently riding a steel audax bike) and was going to wait until 2015 bikes come out to snap up a bargain Cannondale or similar. I've just come across this raleigh...

It looks like a good 1kg frame and full carbon fork and steerer, internal cable routing tapered steerer etc. I have a set of wheels to swap in. I'd think about upgrading brake caliper and chainset.

With current 15% PBK discount, it comes in at under £640.

Let me know your thoughts. Buy this or wait until 2015 bikes come out and look for a big name bargain with 6800 (or buy Planet X RT58)?



The Raleigh SP Comp Monocoque frame construction provides the best balance of performance and cost with a frame weight of just 1050g. Uni-directional Toray high modulus carbon fibre delivers a frame that is stiff, light and strong.

The oversized BB and chain stays combined with flared and flattened seat stays maximise power transfer. Raleigh C4 full carbon monocoque fork weighs 450g, reduces flex and twisting for more control in tight situations.

Key Features:

Monocoque frame construction
Lightweight and strong uni-directional Toray high modulus carbon fibre
Oversized BB and chain stays
Flared and flattened seat stays maximise power transfer
C4 full carbon monocoque fork reduces flex and twisting for increase control
Technical Specifications:

Material: Monocoque High Modulus Carbon
Weight: 9kg
Frame: Raleigh SP monocoque high modulus carbon BB30 frame with internal cable routing. Performance road geometry.
Brakeset: Tektro R312 with cartridge pads
Wheelset: Raleigh AC 2.0 wheels, Schwalbe Lugano 700 x 23c tyres
Gearset: Shimano Tiagra 10 speed shifting levers, front and rear derailleur, FSA Omega ST 50/34t chainset, crank lengths 50cm - 170mm, 52/54/56cm - 172.5mm, 58cm -175mm, Shimano CS4600 12-30t, KMC X10 chain
Controls: ITM XX7 handlebar & stem, Velo VLT-40 tape
Forks: Raleigh C4 carbon blade, 1.1/8” - 1.1/2” carbon steerer, FSA Orbit C40 headset
Finishing kit: Selle San Marco Ponza saddle, RSP seatpost

Grill

The frame is probably fine but the componentry is diabolical. You can definitely see how they arrived at that price...

philclubman

by Grill » Tue May 20, 2014 9:38 pm

The frame is probably fine but the componentry is diabolical. You can definitely see how they arrived at that price...

Apart from the chainset and brakes, is the finishing kit particularly bad?

Any thoughts on how the frame compares to something like an RT58 from Planet X?

Grill

The Tiagra stuff are only things that are decent. It's certainly no better than the Planet X.

philclubman

Grill wrote:

The Tiagra stuff are only things that are decent. It's certainly no better than the Planet X.

Thanks. You're right. If I bought this I'd end up replacing every component. Seems like a good way to spread the cost though.

A 6800 groupset is about £500, so the Raleigh plus new group is £1150. I have some nice wheels, so would leave me money for replacing the finishing kit.

An RT58 with 6800 is £1400. The frameset is £700.

I guess my last question is, should I buy the Raleigh and upgrade, buy something like an RT58, or see what bargains come up on a brand name with decent kit when the 2015 bikes come out?

Grill

Are your current wheels 11 speed? If not you can pick up 5700 for 300 quid which isn't a bad shout.

ugo.santalucia

In which way a 9 Kg carbon bike is better than your steel audax bike?
You will probably have to spend another 500-1000 to upgrade components (wheels, tyres, brakes, chainset... )
If you did not have a bike already, I would say go for it, but as you do, it seems just another bike, surely worse than yours

philclubman

ugo.santalucia wrote:

In which way a 9 Kg carbon bike is better than your steel audax bike?
You will probably have to spend another 500-1000 to upgrade components (wheels, tyres, brakes, chainset... )
If you did not have a bike already, I would say go for it, but as you do, it seems just another bike, surely worse than yours

Thanks. It seemed like a good way to get a decent (half-decent?) carbon frame.

I have spare wheels and tyres in my wheel-bag (Kinlin XR-300, Miche Primato with Vittoria open Corsas), CRC seem to have the 5800 groupset on pre-order for £300.

This means a 1kg carbon frame with B30, tapered steerer, internal cables with a Shimano 105 5800 groupset comes in at less than £1000 plus a set of spare wheels and spare groupset. Finishing kit could be upgraded to save a few hundred grammes.

Seems to make sense in my head, but if the frame is rubbish..?

ugo.santalucia

It's a frame... not sure why people are obsessed about frame materials. Carbon in particular, not having any room for tolerance as metal does, quickly reveals a cheap manufacturing process with endless glitches and problems. I would only buy carbon in a top quality product, which is not necessarily the most expensive (Cervelo for instance are full of faults despite the price), but certainly the one that has the best manufacturing

philclubman

ugo.santalucia wrote:

It's a frame... not sure why people are obsessed about frame materials. Carbon in particular, not having any room for tolerance as metal does, quickly reveals a cheap manufacturing process with endless glitches and problems. I would only buy carbon in a top quality product, which is not necessarily the most expensive (Cervelo for instance are full of faults despite the price), but certainly the one that has the best manufacturing

Could you expand on this? I've almost been convinced that carbon is the best material for lightweight bike frames.

Particularly, what kind of glitches and problems should I expect from a cheap carbon frame?

Also, what are reasonably priced carbon frames that are well manufactured? Are there any in particular?

ugo.santalucia

PhilClubman wrote:

Particularly, what kind of glitches and problems should I expect from a cheap carbon frame?

Also, what are reasonably priced carbon frames that are well manufactured? Are there any in particular?

You can expect poor tolerances, so headset issues because the hidden bearing is not sitting correctly, you can expect steerer problems as the stem doesn't clamp properly. If fitted with press fit bearings at the BB you can expect creakings of all sorts and short bearing life... you can expect the mech hanger to bend easily or break. You can expect issues with the internal routing of the cables, the bottle cage bosses might pop out. You can also expect cracks to develop in the frame, although this plague is somehow just as recurrent with expensive frames.

I'd say the best in carbon fibre for bicycle has to be found among those manufacturers who have been using it for decades... Look for one was making carbon frames in the early 1990s. All the recent outfits are simply labels, the experience they have is in CADesign rather than in materials development and manufacturing and for the latter they rely on the experience of far eastern manufacturers. Take Felt for instance... their frames are made by ADK composites... I have had a carbon fork made by ADK and sold under the brand Genesis and it was trouble for 6 months, until it cracked.

Specialized Roubaix seems a robust enough and not overly priced carbon fibre

Sir Velo

Ugo,
Agree with alot of what you are saying about an over emphasis on carbon frames, but not sure I share your generalisations on the manufacturers. Not had any problems with my Cervelo's nor have my friends that use them. Certainly have heard of some folk with bb problems but have to put into context the number of 'faults' compared to the number of sales.

Also have a Spesh Roubaix and that is the one that has had headset issues and also one of the bottle cage bosses come away. So based on a small sample then the build quality on the Spesh is lower than the Cervelo.

From my experience I have seen faults in most of the brands likely to be seen in a LBS. worst was an Aluminium Trek that came with a slightly twisted rear triangle, and caused an accident. Also seen handmade steel break from fatique and titanium fail on welds.

But again has to be put in context of how many bikes I have seen in the same period.

philclubman

Thanks. So the issue with cheap carbon is the tolerances required for 'new tech' such as integrated headsets, press-fit BB's and internal cables (as well as potentially cracking)?

Are aluminium and steel bikes better in respect to the above? Would a CAAD 10 or Genesis Volare have the same issues?

Monty Dog

Sir Velo wrote:

Cervelo owners gets all defensive

Cervelo have an appalling record for product failures and recalls - there's 4 'official' ones on the first page of Google, it start with the R2.5 which was recalled and renamed the R3 because the first ones were a disaster and still the R3 was a crack-fest. Then there was the Wolf and 2x 3T fork recalls. Maybe the reason they're expensive is they have to factor-in the cost of the inevitable warranty replacement and possibly it's because they're popular with the proverbial fat dentist? I know a few guys who have them - you can hear them coming by the creaking...

rolf_f

PhilClubman wrote:

Thanks. So the issue with cheap carbon is the tolerances required for 'new tech' such as integrated headsets, press-fit BB's and internal cables (as well as potentially cracking)?

Are aluminium and steel bikes better in respect to the above? Would a CAAD 10 or Genesis Volare have the same issues?

It's not that simple. Press fit BBs and internal cables aren't compulsory yet and I've found my fairly cheap Ribble carbon frame to be fine over 20,000 miles. But then that one, out in all weathers, does sport Crud mudguards which, aside from various other benefits, do protect the headset from premature decay.

But ultimately, if you know what you are buying it doesn't really matter. Personally, I love steel bikes and carbon bikes and have little interest in alloy or Ti bikes but that's just me. But about 90% of the stuff that people rave about is snake oil (eg press fit BBs serve the world no benefit and after the first six weeks of admiring the sleek lines of your bike, you'll forget your cables are internal until you lose your temper with them when you are trying to replace them and realise that the internalisation has turned a 10 minute job into a miserable drawn out fight between bike, man and cable!) and really unlikely to make much difference in your enjoyment of a bike ride unless it really matters to you how much others like your bike!

Grill

Monty Dog wrote:

Sir Velo wrote:

Cervelo owners gets all defensive

Cervelo have an appalling record for product failures and recalls - there's 4 'official' ones on the first page of Google, it start with the R2.5 which was recalled and renamed the R3 because the first ones were a disaster and still the R3 was a crack-fest. Then there was the Wolf and 2x 3T fork recalls. Maybe the reason they're expensive is they have to factor-in the cost of the inevitable warranty replacement and possibly it's because they're popular with the proverbial fat dentist? I know a few guys who have them - you can hear them coming by the creaking...

This is true. Not to mention their aftersales is appalling...

rudivoller22

I don't think cervelo are any worse than any others. I had a Scott CR1 that had to be replaced 3 times before I finally lost patience with it (and the awful aftersales cistomer service) and got rid. My S5 so far has been problem free. I also have a cheaper carbon Focus Cayo that has been brilliant for 3 years without any problems whatsoever. Most carbon frames will be great but there will always be the odd duds irrespective who the manufacturer is.

ugo.santalucia

Phil, if you do have a bike that serves you well and you want to upgrade, it's not by going to a fancier material that you will get more out of your bicycle. You need to think how your bike could be better for you... better brakes? Think discs, better fit? Think of a custom frame; better geometry for racing or audaxing or touring? Think of a geometry that suits your needs; fewer hassles? Think of more reliable components. Material is just what the stuff is made of, it's largely irrelevant and slave to the geometry. Carbon frames are stiff because they are designed to be stiff, you can have a very stiff frame made of another material or you can have a super floopy frame made of composite. Carbon fibre has a marginal to significant weight saving over the other materials per equal stiffness, but it also comes with a number of solutions which would make any engineer worth his salt raise his eyebrows, given the application. The current approach to manufacturing composites is great to make sexy curved shapes, but it hardly provides you with a lasting product: remember all these methods were originally developed to make parts for a car to be smashed at 200 mph every other sunday, longevity was never on the agenda, uncompromising solutions with no room for tolerance were.

philclubman

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Phil, if you do have a bike that serves you well and you want to upgrade, it's not by going to a fancier material that you will get more out of your bicycle. You need to think how your bike could be better for you... better brakes? Think discs, better fit? Think of a custom frame; better geometry for racing or audaxing or touring? Think of a geometry that suits your needs; fewer hassles? Think of more reliable components. Material is just what the stuff is made of, it's largely irrelevant and slave to the geometry. Carbon frames are stiff because they are designed to be stiff, you can have a very stiff frame made of another material or you can have a super floopy frame made of composite. Carbon fibre has a marginal to significant weight saving over the other materials per equal stiffness, but it also comes with a number of solutions which would make any engineer worth his salt raise his eyebrows, given the application. The current approach to manufacturing composites is great to make sexy curved shapes, but it hardly provides you with a lasting product: remember all these methods were originally developed to make parts for a car to be smashed at 200 mph every other sunday, longevity was never on the agenda, uncompromising solutions with no room for tolerance were.

Thanks Paulo

I bought my Dawes Clubman when I needed a bike to take my daughter to nursery on the back of. She's getting too big for the bike seat and I'm getting more serious about my cycling.

I'm time trialling and have got my BC licence and want to enter some road races(I don't expect to be particularly good, but promised myself to have a go).

So...

Do I go safe and buy something like a Condor Acciaio and live with the extra 800 odd grammes?
or, buy a carbon frame with press fit BB, internal cables and the like?

How could my bike be better for me?:
It should be lighter
It should fit better - I think my Clubman is slightly long in the top tube
It should have racier angles and clearances

Thoughts?

ugo.santalucia

Buy the Condor Acciaio

philclubman

Thank you

I really appreciate the replies - they've been a huge help.

I think I'm going to concentrate more on training and less on buying! I don't think there's anything wrong with my Clubman - I just get caught up in the idea of a 'faster' bike.

Here's a pic of my Clubman. Last thing I'm buying is a new seatpost - promise!



Thanks again

ugo.santalucia

Your bike rocks and the seatpost is spot on (less so the angle of the saddle... :roll: )

philclubman

That's her in 'summer trim'. At the moment the mudguards and rack are on and I've put the Excellights with 28mm tyres back on too.

I change the wheels and take off the mudguards for club runs and TT's. Sheldon Fender Nuts make taking the 'guards on and off a five minute job.

I'm going to take your advice and get an 80mm stem and see how that feels. Thanks.

The tyres are Vittoria Open Corsa. They stay on the 'fast wheels' and I use latex inners with them.

Also, the BR-R650 on the front seems great (I can't honestly remember what the original Tektro one was like on the front), but thought braking was a good place to upgrade!

ugo.santalucia

PhilClubman wrote:

I'm going to take your advice and get an 80mm stem and see how that feels.

I wouldn't bother, short stems make for dreadful handling

rolf_f

ugo.santalucia wrote:

PhilClubman wrote:

I'm going to take your advice and get an 80mm stem and see how that feels.

I wouldn't bother, short stems make for dreadful handling

Oh Ugo! I expect better from you than this! There's nothing wrong with short stems. They just make for a bit more of a twitchy feel (but no change to the 'handling') which might take up to 10 minutes to get used to. I use 90mm stems - I can't really use any longer without being too stretched out. They are absolutely fine. I have moved between longer and shorter quill stems on my tourer and the shorter stem made no noticeable difference whatsoever to the handling.

Grill

Rolf F wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

PhilClubman wrote:

I'm going to take your advice and get an 80mm stem and see how that feels.

I wouldn't bother, short stems make for dreadful handling

Oh Ugo! I expect better from you than this! There's nothing wrong with short stems. They just make for a bit more of a twitchy feel (but no change to the 'handling') which might take up to 10 minutes to get used to. I use 90mm stems - I can't really use any longer without being too stretched out. They are absolutely fine. I have moved between longer and shorter quill stems on my tourer and the shorter stem made no noticeable difference whatsoever to the handling.

I have to agree with Ugo on this. Even going down to 100mm from 110mm I notice a huge difference.

rolf_f

Grill wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

PhilClubman wrote:

I'm going to take your advice and get an 80mm stem and see how that feels.

I wouldn't bother, short stems make for dreadful handling

Oh Ugo! I expect better from you than this! There's nothing wrong with short stems. They just make for a bit more of a twitchy feel (but no change to the 'handling') which might take up to 10 minutes to get used to. I use 90mm stems - I can't really use any longer without being too stretched out. They are absolutely fine. I have moved between longer and shorter quill stems on my tourer and the shorter stem made no noticeable difference whatsoever to the handling.

I have to agree with Ugo on this. Even going down to 100mm from 110mm I notice a huge difference.

Difference being the operative word; if you changed from a short to a long stem you'd say that long stems make for dreadful handling. Then, ten minutes later, you have got used to it. Trust me - the handling is fine with short stems I haven't crashed in ages....

Moonbiker

Really smart looking bike looks in perfect condition how old is it?

I bought thoose tyres coz they were £14 each awhile back but haven't used them yet. They look nice on your bike.

Nice bottle holders 2

Grill

Rolf F wrote:

Grill wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

PhilClubman wrote:

I'm going to take your advice and get an 80mm stem and see how that feels.

I wouldn't bother, short stems make for dreadful handling

Oh Ugo! I expect better from you than this! There's nothing wrong with short stems. They just make for a bit more of a twitchy feel (but no change to the 'handling') which might take up to 10 minutes to get used to. I use 90mm stems - I can't really use any longer without being too stretched out. They are absolutely fine. I have moved between longer and shorter quill stems on my tourer and the shorter stem made no noticeable difference whatsoever to the handling.

I have to agree with Ugo on this. Even going down to 100mm from 110mm I notice a huge difference.

Difference being the operative word; if you changed from a short to a long stem you'd say that long stems make for dreadful handling. Then, ten minutes later, you have got used to it. Trust me - the handling is fine with short stems I haven't crashed in ages....

Fine for you perhaps. I rode 300 miles on the 100mm and it was just far too twitchy for my liking. Funny how you see pros with long stems but none with short stems...

rolf_f

Grill wrote:

Funny how you see pros with long stems but none with short stems...

So I should have my thighs and ankles cropped so I can fit a longer frame? And what on earth to Pros have to do with anything? Their riding is nothing like my riding so maybe if my stem is as long as theirs then I'm doing it wrong*.

Anyway, how do you reconcile your comments with the fact that I don't find my bikes with 90mm stems at all twitchy? And that lopping two cm off the stem length on my tourer caused me no trouble at all (110 to 90mm). If you can't handle minor geometry changes then that's fine but many of us can.

* Of course, in reality you do see pros with short stems, long stems and any stem length in between. Pros choose their stems for fit rather than fashion. It's just that most can run long stems because normal body proportions allows it and of course a long stem leads to a smaller frame.

Grill

Just a throw-away comment meant to inflame. Seems to have worked, although I'd like to see evidence of a pro using a small stem.

Pretty sure we do different types of riding on different bikes and we aren't the same build (I'd wager that I'm taller), so we're talking about proportionality. Also, I'm sensitive to very small changes on my bikes. I can tell when my cleats are 1 degree off...