Whyte Shoreditch of Cube SL Pro?

King_Pin_Rich

Hi Guys,

After a regular commuter bike for work.

Looking at the Whyte Shoreditch:
http://whyte.bike/gb/models/commuterroad/r7-fast-urban-series/shoreditch/

And the Cube Road SL Pro :
http://www.cube.eu/uk/bikes/tour/sl-road/cube-sl-road-pro-anthrazit-black-green-2015/

What do you guys think ?

King_Pin_Rich

Bump

I'd originally had my mind set on the whyte but the Cube looks fairly good value. Although it's an alloy fork compared to the whytes carbon. Even so the weight difference isn't huge and the Cube had gears at the front.

bendertherobot

Hang on and see if Halfords repeat last week's Boardman Hybrid Team offer.......

jamesco

Of the two, I'd take the Cube. I like the idea of the Whyte but the narrow tyres kill it for me for commuting use.

If that's not a problem for you - and the ride on the Whyte is fairly harsh - then it's well spec'ed and good value. 10 speed is fine. Cycle Surgery were selling the Shoreditch for £550 a couple of months ago.

King_Pin_Rich

thanks for your thoughts. I've never a carbon fork , but according to whyte spiel it's supposed to "smooth out road chatter" , whatever that means.
Presumably you could change the tyres of the whyte too?
Talking of tyres do you think the slicks on the Cube would be an issue in the wet, it's the UK after all ....

bendertherobot

[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19641093#p19641093]King_Pin_Rich[/url] wrote:

thanks for your thoughts. I've never a carbon fork , but according to whyte spiel it's supposed to "smooth out road chatter" , whatever that means.
Presumably you could change the tyres of the whyte too?
Talking of tyres do you think the slicks on the Cube would be an issue in the wet, it's the UK after all ....

In terms of road use Slicks are a red herring. Grooves or knobbles don't aid wet weather traction. And neither do slick tyres aquaplane.

There are better or worse tyres in terms of wet weather grip.

Of those two tyres I doubt there's much in terms of grip. The Vittoria MAY roll faster than the Kojaks but that's more down to compound than size per se (aerodynamics not really figuring much at this juncture). Personally, depending on use, I'd not change either tyre. If I was doing predominantly fast road the tyre on the Whyte is arguably better. But I'd not plump for either of those on tyre choice alone.

King_Pin_Rich

besides the boardmans, which would you plump for?

bendertherobot

[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19641211#p19641211]King_Pin_Rich[/url] wrote:

besides the boardmans, which would you plump for?

TBH I'm struggling. The Whyte has a carbon fork. That is going to be better. But it has a single chainset and arguably worse brakes (though they should be ok).

I think both are slightly compromised.

Is £650 your absolute budget?

jamesco

[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19641093#p19641093]King_Pin_Rich[/url] wrote:

thanks for your thoughts. I've never a carbon fork , but according to whyte spiel it's supposed to "smooth out road chatter" , whatever that means.

It's marketing spiel and doesn't mean much A carbon fork makes things a bit more comfortable but it doesn't make a huge difference.

[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19641093#p19641093]King_Pin_Rich[/url] wrote:

Presumably you could change the tyres of the whyte too?

You can't fit wider tyres on the Shoreditch if you want full mudguards - there isn't enough room. For a commuting bike, mudguards are essential (IMHO) and likewise, so are comfortable - i.e. wide and low pressure - tyres for the crappy road-surface.

28mm puncture-resistant tyres are stiff and unyielding compared to 35mm equivalents. For getting to work and back, choosing comfort makes sense. 35mm + metal fork will pass on less "road chatter" than 28mm + carbon fork.

King_Pin_Rich

"You can't fit wider tyres on the Shoreditch if you want full mudguards - there isn't enough room"

Ah that’s interesting as I do intend to fit mudguards, and I already thought the tyres looked skinny!
The bloke in the shop was keen to sell me 'better' tyres as well, I was told they are suseptable to punctures being only single ply, cant find any evidence of that though.

As a commuter I would prefer comfort over outright performance. I hope to fit a pannier rack as well if that makes any difference.

£650 is the budget I’m afraid. I'm leaning towards the Cube, just in terms of it seemingly being a tad more versatile - wider tyres, few extra gears, wider chainstays.



Totally forgotton how format quotes on this forum as well..

bendertherobot

[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19641211#p19641211]King_Pin_Rich[/url] wrote:

Totally forgotton how format quotes on this forum as well..

Ridgeback Flight 2.0 is worth a look. Annoyingly a triple but that's never as annoying on a flat bar. Good spec.

King_Pin_Rich

I've never ridden anything but flat bars so i'm none the wiser, but why do you consider them annoying?

bendertherobot

[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19643454#p19643454]King_Pin_Rich[/url] wrote:

I've never ridden anything but flat bars so i'm none the wiser, but why do you consider them annoying?

It's triples I consider annoying because I don't see the need for that spread. And, IMO, on a road bike, they are a faff. But, on a flat bar, the shifting between them isn't as annoying as your hands are always in the vicinity of the shifter.

King_Pin_Rich

"And, IMO, on a road bike, they are a faff. But, on a flat bar, the shifting between them isn't as annoying as your hands are always in the vicinity of the shifter."

But by that logic any type of gearing, triple or not, would be annyoing?

That is one aspect of drop bars that puts me off, if i need to slam on the stoppers, then that few seconds to change my grip position might make all the difference.