Carbon or Aluminium and GPS Bike Computers

kieranjhall

Hi,

I'm planning on purchasing my first road bike over the summer. I've narrowed it down to the:
- Canyon ULTIMATE CF SL 7.0
- Cannondale CAAD12 105
- Trek Emonda SL5
*All 2017 Models

I'm absolutely stumped on which one to get so would anyone please be able to tell me:
- A, Which bike is the best value for money?
- B, Which bike is the best out of the three (Ignoring the Price)?

Also, I'm also looking at the Polar M450 bike computer. However, do GPS bike computers ever loose their signal so you don't get any speed or distance readings?

Thank you!

wongataa

kieranjhall wrote:

Also, I'm also looking at the Polar M450 bike computer. However, do GPS bike computers ever loose their signal so you don't get any speed or distance readings?

If they can't see the sky properly yes. Unless you are going through tunnels or very heavy tree cover it isn't really an issue. It can be solved by using separate speed sensors if your device supports those.

cougie

When you buy your bike don't go mad on the price. You need a lot of kit too.

What if you don't like Road cycling?

I'd maybe look for a cheaper bike and see how you get on with it. It'll be almost as good but a lot less cash. Make sure you can fit full mudguards to it as well and it can become your winter bike. Then you can look for your summer bike next year when you know what's important to you.

I didn't bother with a GPS computer for ages. Strava in my back pocket on my smartphone works just as well.

StillGoing

cougie wrote:

When you buy your bike don't go mad on the price. You need a lot of kit too.

What if you don't like Road cycling?

I'd maybe look for a cheaper bike and see how you get on with it. It'll be almost as good but a lot less cash. Make sure you can fit full mudguards to it as well and it can become your winter bike. Then you can look for your summer bike next year when you know what's important to you.

I didn't bother with a GPS computer for ages. Strava in my back pocket on my smartphone works just as well.

Well clearly not. A smartphone cannot do the same job as dedicated cycle computer. There are countless threads on here exalting the additional functions of a dedicated cycle computer, the limited battery life of a smart phone and the necessity to retain the battery life for emergencies when it may be needed to make a phone call.

cougie

Even my iPhone lasted for 100milers out on the road. You don't need all the bells and whistles of a GPS computer and for a beginner you'd probably be better off concentrating on the road.

Clearly it worked for me and clearly we all managed for decades without GPS.

StillGoing

cougie wrote:

Even my iPhone lasted for 100milers out on the road. You don't need all the bells and whistles of a GPS computer and for a beginner you'd probably be better off concentrating on the road.

Clearly it worked for me and clearly we all managed for decades without GPS.

It's not just GPS and mapping. Cadence, heart rate, speed, elevation, power and the variables they can all be viewed in far exceed the abilities of a smart phone. Whilst your phone battery life lasted for 100 miles, the vast majority I wager wouldn't, especially for a beginner who isn't going to manage 4-5 hour total for 100 miles unless they're pretty damn fit to start with. The additional power drain of having Strava or whatever downloaded app they use, is going to impact on battery life and risk not having the power for that all important call if/when things go wrong.

I'm not suggesting a cycle computer is a must, just countering your suggestion that a smart phone works just as well.

Matthewfalle

cougie wrote:

When you buy your bike don't go mad on the price. You need a lot of kit too. .

Nah - ignore that.

If you have the money and you want the bike just buy it. You work hard so enjoy what you have and get what you want.

I know people who £5k bikes and use them twice a year. I also know people who are stuck with £50 bikes as it's all they can afford. They tend to envy the former.

I'd go for the 'Dale but it's only because I really like Cannondales .......

kieranjhall

OK-thank you all for the responses!

I understand what your saying about using the phone instead of purchasing a computer but I don't think my S6 would last a cycle ride around my local mountains!

Cougie I think you definitely have a point about about not getting a high end one as the extras do look really pricey(shoes, jerseys and spares).
The Cannondale is probably the better one for starting off then?

But does the low end carbon that you would find on the cheaper carbon frames like the Canyon and Trek that I mentioned definitely not worth paying the extra cash for in regards to performance? or are they just hyped up to be something they're not?

Thanks

w00dster

The wife has the SL5 and I have an Emonda SLR, I love it. Light bikes, can be set up with a nice aggressive geometry, its comfortable for all day rides.
I've also rode an 'dale CAAD 8 and 10 but not the 12, great bikes, again I'm a fan of geometry, nice and low. But I do think there is a big difference in feel between a decent carbon frame and an Alu one. I know other people may differ, but my bikes are top level carbon frame and a couple of Alu frames. The latest being a Trek Domane ALR, this is fairly ok, but I can tell the difference in ride between the Alu and Carbon.

All of your list are very good bikes and you can't really go wrong with any of them. It'd be down to what offer you can get with them, the Canyon you'll be on a fixed price, but you may get a discount on the others?

I personally would go for the Emonda based on having ridden them a lot and being very happy with how it rides. But then other people who ride Canyon and Cannondale will more than likely prefer those. As mentioned you won't go wrong with any of your list.

MiddleRinger

kieranjhall wrote:

Also, I'm also looking at the Polar M450 bike computer. However, do GPS bike computers ever loose their signal so you don't get any speed or distance readings?

Forget the Polar and buy a Garmin, there's a good reason they're the cycling GPS market leader.

kieranjhall

Thanks everyone for the replies!

My personal favourite out of the three was the Canyon because it looks stunning, its carbon and the things you get with it make it great value for the money!
But after reading your post on the Trek, it made me wonder that is the carbon in the canyon frames made to a poor standard compared to Trek's? As the Trek is more expensive with similar componentry.

The Cannondale is also tempting as you've all said its a great bike and its aluminium so it would probaly hold up better going over speed bumps and the Nube crashes?

Sorry for all the Nube questions! I really appreciate the responses.

Thanks a mill!

hnefi

cougie wrote:

When you buy your bike don't go mad on the price. You need a lot of kit too.

What if you don't like Road cycling?

I'd maybe look for a cheaper bike and see how you get on with it. It'll be almost as good but a lot less cash. Make sure you can fit full mudguards to it as well and it can become your winter bike. Then you can look for your summer bike next year when you know what's important to you.

I didn't bother with a GPS computer for ages. Strava in my back pocket on my smartphone works just as well.

This is good advice.

I just got into cycling last summer and started out with a gravel bike that I use for my 15km commute, and have started going on rides with groups or friends who are strong cyclists. If I didn't like that kind of riding, then I will still commute on it, and it's not like I have a 5k carbon aero beast that I only take to the office and back... It's got a 34/32 low gear so I can keep up on long climbs (today was out on an HC one that has been used in the Tour de Suisse) and it's fair enough up to 35km/h on the flats before the upright ride starts getting a little bit non-aero on the front.

Today, I tried out my friend's Dogma K8 on the climbs, and that was an experience to have....... Going from a 12kg to 7kg bike with a rock solid bottom bracket, I felt like I was on steroids. Lowest gear was 36/28 instead of 34/32, and I was flying. So, now I've had a bite at that apple and am thinking about whether I might upgrade next summer... But I wouldn't have known exactly whether I had the appetite for climbing, longer rides, or the flexibility and such for long stretches in the drops, unless I got something entry level first.

StillGoing

I agree with the view of buy what you can afford. Bikes have never been cheaper in terms of what you get for your money. Just look at the available deals on 2016 Ridley Noahs at the moment. £1,200 for an exquisite carbon frame and Ultegra 11 speed and decent enough wheels. Once you buy a bike, it loses value hand over fist. Buying a cheap bike and deciding to sell it to part fund a better bike will see you get very little return for your money and cost you more in the long run. Buy the best bike you can afford from the start. If it isn't for you, sell it and get something back. If you like it, you're laughing.