Planet X road bike differences ?

paulmgreen
paulmgreen Posts: 158
edited January 2015 in Road buying advice
I'm hovering over the Buy button, but am stuck to see what the difference actually is between two models for a £200 premium??

Anyone here know that ranges and can offer any advice?

The Planet X Pro Carbon is £1199 >> http://www.planetx.co.uk/i/q/CBPXSLPULT ... -road-bike

The RT - 58 caron is £1399 >> http://www.planetx.co.uk/i/q/CBPXRT58UL ... -road-bike

The second one is described as more sportive friendly geometry although looking at the dimensions chart the differences between the two frames in key areas is onl 3-4 mm so sceptical at how this small difference could make for any radically different feels?

Any thoughts fellas? I prefer the colour of the RT 58 to be honest but don't really want to make that choice based upon just colour!

Comments

  • sloppyschleckonds
    sloppyschleckonds Posts: 8,019
    paulmgreen wrote:
    The second one is described as more sportive friendly geometry although looking at the dimensions chart the differences between the two frames in key areas is onl 3-4 mm so sceptical at how this small difference could make for any radically different feels?

    Could make a massive difference, fit is of paramount importance.
    I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles
  • diamonddog
    diamonddog Posts: 3,426
    ^^This, the Pro Carbon is quite 'racy' geometry and a few mm in geometry can make a significant difference IME.
  • BenderRodriguez
    BenderRodriguez Posts: 907
    I would have thought that the internal cables and flashier paint job of the RT 58 would pretty much account for the £200 difference in themselves.

    (Just look at how much a flashy paint job will cost you if you buy a Dedacciai frame carrying a 'big name brand' (such as De Rosa) when the same frame is also sold by people like Ribble with their own branding on and a 'stealth' finish. You could spend £800 more!)

    That said, the most important thing is just to buy the one that fits the best and is most in line with your needs. For me, the 'Pro' would be a slightly better fit as it has a shallower seat angle and longer top tube than the most comparable RT 58. Then again, I could just fit a 1 cm longer stem. The 'Pro' also has a much pronounced sloping geometry, so for a comparably sized top tube a lot more seat pin will be showing. It is also an older design.

    On balance, if I had to make a choice between just these two, I would take the RT 58...
    "an original thinker… the intellectual heir of Galileo and Einstein… suspicious of orthodoxy - any orthodoxy… He relishes all forms of ontological argument": jane90.
  • BenderRodriguez
    BenderRodriguez Posts: 907
    diamonddog wrote:
    ^^This, the Pro Carbon is quite 'racy' geometry and a few mm in geometry can make a significant difference IME.

    How come? I would have said that in some ways the RT 58 is actually the 'racier' design. For example, the seat and head angles of a large 'Pro carbon' are both 73 degrees, which is quite laid back. In comparison, the RT-58 in a large has a seat angle of 73.3 degrees and head angle of 73.5 degrees, which is significantly 'racier'. True the head tube on the RT-58 is 5mm longer and the top tube is 1 cm shorter than on the 'Pro carbon', but neither of these will affect the ride as much as the differences in the angles will.

    For their designations to make real sense, the 'Pro race' should have the angles of the RT-58, retaining the shorter head tube and longer top tube, whilst the RT-58 should have the angles of the 'Pro race', retaining its shorter top tube and longer head tube!

    P.s. To my mind most manufacturers these days produce frames with overly-steep seat angles. There are exceptions but, unfortunately, the 'off the peg' frame that would suit me the best (and which in 'my' size has a seat angle of 72.75 degrees - other manufacturers please take note) is a Colnago C60, and I just can't justify spending that sort of money. Also, even the C60 would not be ideal, as they all have a very long 'sportive' head tube and I would prefer something shorter. On the 56S size the head tube of the C60 187mm long. The one on my current frame is 155mm long and I have just one 5mm spacer fitted on top of this.
    "an original thinker… the intellectual heir of Galileo and Einstein… suspicious of orthodoxy - any orthodoxy… He relishes all forms of ontological argument": jane90.
  • poacher13
    poacher13 Posts: 70
    Not sure if it will help but if you prefer the paint job of the RT-58 (which i do!) you will not be happy buying the Pro instead.
    You wouldn't go to a night club on the pull trying to find an ugly bird just because she is a good ride would you? 8)
  • holiver
    holiver Posts: 729
    The stack and reach figures are the key ones to compare. The Pro is longer and lower.
    2013 Kinesis Racelight T2
  • BenderRodriguez
    BenderRodriguez Posts: 907
    holiver wrote:
    The stack and reach figures are the key ones to compare. The Pro is longer and lower.

    By about 1cm, which can easily be adjusted for via spacers, headset height, stem length etc. On the other hand the angles will determine how the steering responds and so how the frame feels to ride, and this can't be changed.

    In any case, due to the steeper seat angle of the RT, in order to get the saddle in the same position over the BB as with the Pro race you will have to push the saddle further back. This will extend the reach so, when set up with an identical saddle position relative to the BB, the actual reach will be about the same on both frames.
    "an original thinker… the intellectual heir of Galileo and Einstein… suspicious of orthodoxy - any orthodoxy… He relishes all forms of ontological argument": jane90.
  • SoSimple
    SoSimple Posts: 301
    poacher13 wrote:
    You wouldn't go to a night club on the pull trying to find an ugly bird just because she is a good ride would you? 8)

    Speak for yourself mate!
  • gloomyandy
    gloomyandy Posts: 520
    If the reach is longer on one then it will be longer no matter what seat angle the bikes have. The reach is measured from the bottom bracket just as the position of the saddle should be. All a steeper or slacker seat tube really does is change the amount of offset you will need to get your saddle in the correct place relative to the bottom bracket. Different seat post angles does mean that it is not easy to compare bikes by effective top tube length, that is why using the reach measurement is much better. On some bikes a steep seat angle may also mean shorter chain stays which for the same saddle position may mean your weight is more over the back wheel, may or may not be a good thing! Having said that different head tube angles can make a difference even with bikes of the same reach as unless the stem is slammed the head tube angle will impact the position of the bars and so change the actual reach. Not to mention the effect that the head tube angle may have on the feel of the bike.

    I ride a small framed pro carbon and a 51cm Cervelo both are setup with pretty much exactly the same riding position but the pro carbon has a much "twitchier" ride especially on fast bumpy downhills. I think the pro carbon has a reputation for this and my small version certainly lives up to it.
  • J90
    J90 Posts: 46
    The RT-58 is made from better material. Insider knowledge....
  • springtide9
    springtide9 Posts: 1,731
    From my understanding (there was an article that explained the range a while back) the Planet X models stack up like this, with the geometry being the most the sportive-est (comfort) at the top and raciest at the bottom

    Planet X RT58
    Planet X Pro Carbon
    Planet X RT57
    Planet X Nanolight
    Planet X N2A

    The Planet X RT58 is stiffer than the Pro Carbon - but only really noticable if you are a bigger bloke. Some of the 'flex' issues you see mentioned with the Pro Carbon are related to the front fork.. taking the spacers away pretty much solves the flex issue (it's the fork steerer that flexes), but does men the bike is then setup pretty racy.

    If you have the cash then either choose the RT57 or RT58 would be my advice as you'll keep the frame for years (where as parts get replaced when needed), although my Pro Carbon served me well for about 3 years and at 90kg I'm hardly a lightweight.

    And buy what makes sense to your riding...
    Simon
  • SoSimple
    SoSimple Posts: 301
    J90 wrote:
    The RT-58 is made from better material. Insider knowledge....

    Really....do tell?
  • Robbo73
    Robbo73 Posts: 15
    I have an RT58 and was deliberating over both options too but went for the 58 on a 58 cm frame. With a proper fitting it's superb on longer rides and at 6 ft 4, for me it's just a better bike for what I do. We'll worth the money. I have SRAM force group set on it, but feel the frame is good for an upgrade or two when the time comes. Go for it.
  • SoSimple
    SoSimple Posts: 301
    Finally made a decision and pushed the button on the RT58 in white and green.

    One page says build time of 2-3 days but the template email says 7-10. Not fussed either way as work is mad for for next couple of weeks but can't wait until it comes.

    Upgraded the tyres to Conti 4000's as they were only marginally more expensive than buying separately and also bought the Ultegra pedals despite everything I've read saying the latest 105's are marginally heavier but much cheaper.

    Thanks to everyone on this and a couple of other threads for their advice
  • buzzwold
    buzzwold Posts: 197
    You never finished the story. How was the bike?
    Someone's just passed me again

Categories