First Road bike problems

ConorT
ConorT Posts: 3
edited March 2015 in Road buying advice
Hi all, I'm sure there are plenty of these on here but I could do with a hand.

Currently I have a 2013 Specialized sport hybrid. Was bought for commuting, but mainly use now on sunny afternoons during the summer and to keep fit during off season of rugby. Generally averaging around 30-40 miles a ride.

I am looking to upgrade to a road bike, as have a friend that is in a similar situation to me and I want a similar spec to his in order to be on par in terms of technology.

I believe he has a Merida 300 2014? He recommended looking at aluminium frame with carbon forks.

I have come across a few Cube bikes that I like the look of at my local cycle store, I was wondering if someone can point me in the right direction?

http://www.paulscycles.co.uk/m7b0s6p526 ... MPACT-2013

http://www.paulscycles.co.uk/m7b0s6p616 ... MPACT-2014

http://www.paulscycles.co.uk/m7b0s6p467 ... RIPLE-2013

My question really is - Will I be able to keep up with my friend on longer rides with either of these, and which would be the one to go for out of these? (or similar in the price range) I plan on using the cycle scheme to make my purchase, so will be using this store.

Many thanks in advance!

Comments

  • freestyle_gus
    freestyle_gus Posts: 120
    Whether you will be able to keep up with your pal is very much down to your relative fitness.

    These Cubes are definitely comparable to the Merida as far as I'm concerned. I'd go for the Compact 2014 I think, as it appears to have slightly better spec. More 105 as opposed to Tiagra, I don't really like Triples (personal preference).

    Getting the right size will be important though. I think some of Cube's sizing can be a bit idiosyncratic.

    Lovely bikes though. All three!
  • ai_1
    ai_1 Posts: 3,060
    edited March 2015
    These are all the same bike frame but with different gearing options in each case and one has different wheels.
    If you're heavy and live in a very hilly area there may be an argument for the triple as it gives a wider range of gear options. I think triples are excellent if you struggle on the hills or want to be able to maintain a higher cadence. New compacts (two chainrings, typically with 34 and 50 teeth) can cover similar gear ranges with some small compromises. On the other hand many people suggest triples are harder to set up and maintain. I never had real problems with mine.
    Any of these bikes should do fine. Just make sure the fit is right.

    Speed on a road bike is almost entirely down to your fitness and your position on the bike. Weight of the bike also makes a small difference on hills but weight of the rider is generally much more significant. Good tyres can make a small difference too.
  • freestyle_gus
    freestyle_gus Posts: 120
    Ai_1 wrote:
    These are all the same bike frame but with different gearing options in each case and one has different wheels.
    If you're heavy and live in a very hilly area there may be an argument for the triple as it gives a wider range of gear options. I think triples are excellent if you struggle on the hills or want to be able to maintain a higher cadence. New compacts (two chainrings, typically with 34 and 50 teeth) can cover similar gear ranges with some small compromises but many people think they are harder to maintain. I never had real problems with mine.
    Any of these bikes should do fine. Just make sure the fit is right.

    Speed on a road bike is almost entirely down to your fitness and your position on the bike. Weight of the bike also makes a small difference on hills but weight of the rider is generally much more significant. Good tyres can make a small difference too.

    What he said! :D
  • ConorT
    ConorT Posts: 3
    Cheers guys for the input and quick response, will make my way down tomorrow to get sized up.

    We are both very competitive when we are doing sport, so just wanted to make sure that the technology cannot be blamed for one of us being slower :) Should be interesting when it comes down to it though, as I have approximately 7 inches and 4 and a half stone on him.
  • freestyle_gus
    freestyle_gus Posts: 120
    ConorT wrote:
    Cheers guys for the input and quick response, will make my way down tomorrow to get sized up.

    We are both very competitive when we are doing sport, so just wanted to make sure that the technology cannot be blamed for one of us being slower :) Should be interesting when it comes down to it though, as I have approximately 7 inches and 4 and a half stone on him.

    The bikes are very similar in weight (about 9.5kg I think) and kit, so you'll be on a par in that sense :)

    Debatably all of the Cubes have better wheels (easton or fulcrum) than the Merida, so that's a bonus.

    Here's a nice review of the triple from last year

    http://www.bikeradar.com/road/gear/cate ... -15-48989/
  • ai_1
    ai_1 Posts: 3,060
    freestyle_gus wrote:
    Debatably all of the Cubes have better wheels (easton or fulcrum) than the Merida, so that's a bonus.
    Minor correction: they have Fulcrum or Shimano, not Easton. The Easton kit is the bars, seat posts and stems.
    The'll be fine, nothing exciting but perfectly good basic wheels.
    ConorT wrote:
    Cheers guys for the input and quick response, will make my way down tomorrow to get sized up.

    We are both very competitive when we are doing sport, so just wanted to make sure that the technology cannot be blamed for one of us being slower :) Should be interesting when it comes down to it though, as I have approximately 7 inches and 4 and a half stone on him.
    If you're both pretty fit, you may find that performance differences generally come down to the differences in your physiques. Generally smaller riders will perform better on the hills where higher weight puts greater demands on the heart and lungs.
  • keef66
    keef66 Posts: 13,123
    If you can get into an aero tuck you should find you go downhill faster than him, but he'll go uphill faster. You may have the advantage on the flat too.
  • ai_1
    ai_1 Posts: 3,060
    keef66 wrote:
    If you can get into an aero tuck you should find you go downhill faster than him, but he'll go uphill faster. You may have the advantage on the flat too.
    Although on bendy downhills your higher mass means you'll likely have to start braking earlier for the corners. Same braking system with more mass to stop means a lower max deceleration. I often ride with my brother who is the same height as me but 20kg lighter, i.e. a typical cyclist physique (1.78m, 66kg). He's also fitter as a lifelong athlete compared to my 4.5years of cycling. Anyway, I can pull away from him on straight descent sections but he gets it all back on the corners due to better braking....and because he's nuts.
  • gimpl
    gimpl Posts: 269
    ConorT wrote:
    Cheers guys for the input and quick response, will make my way down tomorrow to get sized up.

    We are both very competitive when we are doing sport, so just wanted to make sure that the technology cannot be blamed for one of us being slower :) Should be interesting when it comes down to it though, as I have approximately 7 inches and 4 and a half stone on him.

    As a 6'4", 16+ stone ex second rower I can confirm you will get absolutely blitzed by him going up hills, downhill not so much. I can also power past people on the flat and am generally the 'windbreak'.

    I've just had to learn to accept it and so will you. 4 and a half stone is a hell of a lot extra to drag uphill - sorry :mrgreen:

Categories