Time for a big upgrade - help needed Canyone or Ribble

nad_84

Morning all,

I'm relatively new to the forum but have been riding for a few years now.
Current bike is a 2011 specialized sectuer and I'm looking to upgrade.

I'd like to go carbon with ideally a 105 5800 groupset or better.

I have been looking at the following bikes:
Caynon Ultimate CF with 105 which comes in at £1399 + P+P
https://www.canyon.com/en/roadbikes/bike.html?b=3589

Ribble R872 with part 105 groupset for £899 + P+P
http://www.ribblecycles.co.uk/bbd/road-track-bike/ribble-r872?part=SE14R872SHIMA105&sub=conf_BBRC&bike=1#Groupset

Now there is quite a big difference in price between the two and i know the wheels on the Ribble would need upgrading straight away which i could afford to do.

I guess i'd like some views and opinion ideally from owners as to what you'd do in my situation.
The price difference is quite substantial, is it worth spending the extra?

The types of riding i do is mainly social/tours, i don't race go out 1-3 times a week depending on the weather.
Mid week riding tends to be 30-40k. Weekend varies between 100-150k

Thanks in advance

diamonddog

Nothing wrong with the Ribble but by the time you upgrade the wheels it will be the same price as the Canyon IMO.

My choice would be the Canyon, slightly biased as I have one but both are good bikes.

steel191964

Personally, if you are upgrading your bike i would have a bike fit for starters.

Once you have had this, you will know then what frame/spec fits you and in your price range the choice you have is endless.

darkhairedlord

steel191964 wrote:

Personally, if you are upgrading your bike i would have a bike fit for starters.

Once you have had this, you will know then what frame/spec fits you and in your price range the choice you have is endless.

Unless he doesn't need one.

ai_1

I'd start by deciding if both bikes suit you in terms of geometry. Assuming both are suitable, I'd go for the Canyon.
I'm biased as I have one but they really are great bikes, especially for the money. Mine is a 2014 Ultimate CF SL 9.0 so the Ultegra version with Ksyrium Elite wheels but same frame. I have no complaints or regrets. It's a lovely ride and an attractive bike too. You could get the Ribble, upgrade the wheels and have a decent bike but you won't save a lot and I suspect the Canyon is the better frame.

nad_84

darkhairedlord wrote:

steel191964 wrote:

Personally, if you are upgrading your bike i would have a bike fit for starters.

Once you have had this, you will know then what frame/spec fits you and in your price range the choice you have is endless.

Unless he doesn't need one.

I've not had a bike fitting actually, heard mixed reviews... is it essential?

Calpol

nad_84 wrote:

darkhairedlord wrote:

steel191964 wrote:

Personally, if you are upgrading your bike i would have a bike fit for starters.

Once you have had this, you will know then what frame/spec fits you and in your price range the choice you have is endless.

Unless he doesn't need one.

I've not had a bike fitting actually, heard mixed reviews... is it essential?

I would say - not.

I have had a retul based bike fit to fine tune my position but it hasn't made a massive difference. It was useful to understand the process but if I am honest it was a bit of an over indulgence on my part.

If you are buying a new bike then you should ideally test ride but failing that at least understand how the geometry compares to your current ride. It was explained to me that stack and reach are the two best measurements to use as a comparative. You can also calculate the ratio of stack / reach to give an indication of the relative "aggressiveness" of the bike.

Secteur AFAIK is quite an upright position. 56cm frame has S/R ratio 1.52. A similar sized Canyon CF would be 1.47 which is quite a difference if you don't have quite long arms or arent too flexible. Of course a shorter stem could address that issue. The Canyon Endurace model would be closer to your Secteur in geometry and it also seems a vey good bike

If you are comfortable on your current bike and have no injury issues then you can easily use this as a guide to inform your next purchase. Comfort is king for longer rides. Lower positions look more pro but sensibly would remain the preserve of people that race or TT.

mlgt

I would be biased too and opt for a Canyon. I have an Endurace CF9.0 but they have a similar set up in the shape of a 7.0 - https://www.canyon.com/en/roadbikes/bike.html?b=3693

I opted for a more upright position as this would be go to bike for commuting and weekend riding. Its ticked all the boxes for me and found it quick delivery and value for money.

Do research based on your current bike and look at the sizing. Good luck

ai_1

nad_84 wrote:

darkhairedlord wrote:

steel191964 wrote:

Personally, if you are upgrading your bike i would have a bike fit for starters.

Once you have had this, you will know then what frame/spec fits you and in your price range the choice you have is endless.

Unless he doesn't need one.

I've not had a bike fitting actually, heard mixed reviews... is it essential?

Not essential. Might be useful.

There's plenty information online that will allow you set up your position pretty well without a bike fit, if you're willing to spend a little time doing the research. Or, if you've been riding a while and you're perfectly happy with your comfort and performance on the bike then you may not feel any change is needed.
I did a bike fit a couple of years back after having spent a while fiddling with my position myself until I reckoned it was pretty good. The bike fitter moved things around quite a bit but ended up putting be back in a similar position to what I'd done myself. I think the end result was to move the saddle back 5mm and shorten the stem 10mm.

A good position is crucial to comfort and performance. If already have a decent position on your existing bike you can use that to figure out what geometry will work in a new bike. If this is your first road bike or you never got your position sorted then it might be worth getting a fitter to review your proposed bike choice to make sure it will be possible to make it fit you as it should.

lostboysaint

Go to as many local bike shops as you can and try a load of different bikes out and see which fit you best. Now is a great time to buy as there's still plenty of 2014 bikes on offer so you may get a much better bang for your buck, plus the benefit of knowing that the bike actually fits you well.

il_principe

Biased as well but I'd go for the Canyon. Just be prepared to wait a while as delivery times have a tendency to slip...

I rode the AL SLX, CF and CF SLX last year. Was very impressed and now own an Aeroad SLX.

All this talk re fit/comfort etc. An aggressive position can also be comfortable if you train for it and maintain flexibility. I don't get this sit up and beg 'sportive positioning'; if I'm doing a long ride I want to try and maintain a semblance of aero, sitting up in the wind ends up tiring you out.

ai_1

Il Principe wrote:

...All this talk re fit/comfort etc. An aggressive position can also be comfortable if you train for it and maintain flexibility. I don't get this sit up and beg 'sportive positioning'; if I'm doing a long ride I want to try and maintain a semblance of aero, sitting up in the wind ends up tiring you out.

No-one here said comfort meant "sit up and beg" positioning! Whetehr your psoition is aggressive or not you'll want the bike to fit you well in order to be comfortable. In general riders are more comfortable in a more upright position since there's less weight on our hands/arms/shoulders, and less strain on our necks and back. That doesn't mean an aggressive position has to be uncomfortable but it will usually be less comfortable. Of course the upside is reduced drag so maximum comfort isn't the only consideration. However on longer rides it's not usually possible to maintain as aggressive a position as a short ride because the postural muscles fatigue and form is lost. Nor is the advantage as great since the speeds will tend to be lower meaning aerodynamic loses are a lower proportion of the total.
If you can ride in the same position for several hours that you can for short sprints then I'd say you can go more aggressive for sprints. I once needed a very upright position for any long ride due to some neck problems and also poor core strength and flexibility. I've worked on all 3 of these and can now manage, and indeed prefer, a much greater saddle to bar drop than when I started 4 years ago. Different people have different experience, abilities and priorities. Seems silly to suggest they should aspire to the same bike position when there is no one "correct" bike position.

rolf_f

Il Principe wrote:

All this talk re fit/comfort etc. An aggressive position can also be comfortable if you train for it and maintain flexibility. I don't get this sit up and beg 'sportive positioning'; if I'm doing a long ride I want to try and maintain a semblance of aero, sitting up in the wind ends up tiring you out.

Have you checked what the difference between 'aggressive' and 'sportive' geometry is in terms of position? It's knack all. Put your arms out and rest them flat on the desk infront of you. Imagine your fingers over the bars of your aggressive bike. Now draw your fingers back so they are vertical, raising your hands off the desk - now your geometry is sportive! The wind is no more able to tell you are on a sportive bike than it can tell that you are on an aero bike.

il_principe

Rolf F wrote:

Il Principe wrote:

All this talk re fit/comfort etc. An aggressive position can also be comfortable if you train for it and maintain flexibility. I don't get this sit up and beg 'sportive positioning'; if I'm doing a long ride I want to try and maintain a semblance of aero, sitting up in the wind ends up tiring you out.

Have you checked what the difference between 'aggressive' and 'sportive' geometry is in terms of position? It's knack all. Put your arms out and rest them flat on the desk infront of you. Imagine your fingers over the bars of your aggressive bike. Now draw your fingers back so they are vertical, raising your hands off the desk - now your geometry is sportive! The wind is no more able to tell you are on a sportive bike than it can tell that you are on an aero bike.

Not the case at all. Look at the difference in Geom between Giant's 'Sportive' bike - Defy and their 'Aero Race' bike - Propel:

http://www.giant-bicycles.com/en-gb/bikes/model/defy.advanced.3/19188/77292/#geometry
http://www.giant-bicycles.com/en-gb/bikes/model/propel.advanced.sl.2/19200/77266/#geometry

Propel in size 54.5 has a TT of 57, reach of 39.1 & stack of 56.6
Defy in size 53.5 has a TT of 56, reach of 38.1 & stack of 58.5

The Defy puts more of the rider in the wind and IME that can make a big difference over long rides.

rolf_f

Il Principe wrote:

Not the case at all. Look at the difference in Geom between Giant's 'Sportive' bike - Defy and their 'Aero Race' bike - Propel:

Propel in size 54.5 has a TT of 57, reach of 39.1 & stack of 56.6
Defy in size 53.5 has a TT of 56, reach of 38.1 & stack of 58.5

Exactly - knack all. The Propel has a 1.7% longer top tube, a 2.6% longer reach and 3.2% less stack height (and that doesn't take into account variations in spacers to make the fit correct). Chances are, most of us of similar proportions have more than that variance in like for like fits. Like I said, do the thing with your hands on the desk. It doesn't make that much difference. If you are worried about the wind, you'd get more benefit by using a deeper drop bar.

Also you are not accounting for the variation between frame geometry and personal geometry. Taking your examples, one person might end up having a more aero fit on a Defy than another might on the Propel. The priority is to work out what your ideal bike geometry is (taking into account of how you low you might want to sit on it) and see what frame matches that best - irrespective of relative differences in stack height, reach etc.

il_principe

Rolf F wrote:

Il Principe wrote:

Not the case at all. Look at the difference in Geom between Giant's 'Sportive' bike - Defy and their 'Aero Race' bike - Propel:

Propel in size 54.5 has a TT of 57, reach of 39.1 & stack of 56.6
Defy in size 53.5 has a TT of 56, reach of 38.1 & stack of 58.5

Exactly - knack all. The Propel has a 1.7% longer top tube, a 2.6% longer reach and 3.2% less stack height (and that doesn't take into account variations in spacers to make the fit correct). Chances are, most of us of similar proportions have more than that variance in like for like fits. Like I said, do the thing with your hands on the desk. It doesn't make that much difference. If you are worried about the wind, you'd get more benefit by using a deeper drop bar.

Also you are not accounting for the variation between frame geometry and personal geometry. Taking your examples, one person might end up having a more aero fit on a Defy than another might on the Propel. The priority is to work out what your ideal bike geometry is (taking into account of how you low you might want to sit on it) and see what frame matches that best - irrespective of relative differences in stack height, reach etc.

Hardly knack all! A few cm here or there makes a huge difference to fit, wind exposure and efficiency.

passout

I bought a ribble a while back and the put me on a jigg to check size & stem length - if you can visit? Bikefit is not essental IMO if you are sure that you are buying the right size. Budget seems to be the main thing here to me. The Canyon looks good.

passout

Also look at cycle division eg http://www.cycledivision.co.uk/product- ... id278.html

ai_1

Il Principe wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Il Principe wrote:

Not the case at all. Look at the difference in Geom between Giant's 'Sportive' bike - Defy and their 'Aero Race' bike - Propel:

Propel in size 54.5 has a TT of 57, reach of 39.1 & stack of 56.6
Defy in size 53.5 has a TT of 56, reach of 38.1 & stack of 58.5

Exactly - knack all. The Propel has a 1.7% longer top tube, a 2.6% longer reach and 3.2% less stack height (and that doesn't take into account variations in spacers to make the fit correct). Chances are, most of us of similar proportions have more than that variance in like for like fits. Like I said, do the thing with your hands on the desk. It doesn't make that much difference. If you are worried about the wind, you'd get more benefit by using a deeper drop bar.

Also you are not accounting for the variation between frame geometry and personal geometry. Taking your examples, one person might end up having a more aero fit on a Defy than another might on the Propel. The priority is to work out what your ideal bike geometry is (taking into account of how you low you might want to sit on it) and see what frame matches that best - irrespective of relative differences in stack height, reach etc.

Hardly knack all! A few cm here or there makes a huge difference to fit, wind exposure and efficiency.

Those are pretty small differences really. They will make a difference in the ability to get a good fit but the ability of the rider to hold a given position will determine how aero they will be on the bike. I ride a Canyon Ultimate CF frame. Same geometry as the Katusha and Moviestar pros have used the last two years. You can bet my position is not nearly as aggressive as theirs. They'd be using smaller frames and different stems for the same size rider. It's not primarily about the bike. It's the bike/rider combo. A more aggressive frame geometry is worth nothing unless it's a good match to the rider and they don't need spacers, etc, to find a comfortable position on it. I could ride the Canyon Endurace ("sportive") frame without a couple of spacers and with a longer stem and be just as aero as I am on the racier Ultimate.