Help with bike choice

matt71

Good morning everyone

I am a regular reader to the forum but this is my 1st post and would like some help with a choice of bike please? I am stuck between either the Ribble Endurance disc or the Ribble 872 disc (see links below). I have chosen Ribble as they are local and will take my Halfords cycle to work vouchers.

https://www.ribblecycles.co.uk/ribble-e ... mmer-sale/

https://www.ribblecycles.co.uk/ribble-r ... mmer-sale/

one is £400 cheaper with aluminium frame and 105 groupset while the other is carbon with Ultegra. My dilemma is it worth the extra money for the carbon or not?

I am not planning to do any racing buy will be eating a lot of road miles mainly and would like comfort and ease to get me over some big hills etc.

What do you suggests and thank you all for your help, I really appreciate it.

Matthewfalle

carbon and ultegra - its only a couple of hundred quid so no reason not to.

#splashthecash

aberdeen_lune

Whatever you do don’t get the white one. It’s a bugger to keep a white bike clean.

matt71

Cheers for the quick replies !

I honestly had some people tell me it really is not worth paying the extra, so thought I would ask the experts on here

However would the ride be more uncomfortable on the carbon? Again been told mixed opinions !

Cheers again

fenix

My carbon bikes give a comfier ride than my steel bike. Quite astonishig really. But neither of these will be uncomfortable if its the right size.

joe_totale-2

Tyre width and the pressures you run them at have as much impact on ride comfort as frame material.

The usual cliche is that aluminium frames are harsher to ride but in my experience of several different alu and carbon bikes I don't find it particularly true.

bobones

Don't know about that. I recently replaced my Scott CR1 (carbon) frame with a De Rosa (also carbon) and there is a massive difference in comfort level in favour of the De Rosa with the same tyres , pressures, wheels, bars etc. I can feel every bump in the road through my damaged wrist with the Scott such that I used to remove my hand from the bars to avoid the impact whereas the De Rosa just glides over the same bumps with virtually no pain to my wrist. I was always a bit sceptical about how much difference a frame can make, but it's actually quite astonishing.

matt71

Thank you again everyone

Just order my voucher from work and carbon looks like it is !

Cheers Matt

shirley_basso

Excellent choice. Cracking bike, too.

imposter2.0

bobones wrote:

Don't know about that. I recently replaced my Scott CR1 (carbon) frame with a De Rosa (also carbon) and there is a massive difference in comfort level in favour of the De Rosa with the same tyres , pressures, wheels, bars etc. I can feel every bump in the road through my damaged wrist with the Scott such that I used to remove my hand from the bars to avoid the impact whereas the De Rosa just glides over the same bumps with virtually no pain to my wrist. I was always a bit sceptical about how much difference a frame can make, but it's actually quite astonishing.

If correct, that would imply that the DeRosa frame is actually compressing/flexing in order to deflect the impacts from these bumps in the road. If that's the case, I'm guessing the bike must handle like a bowl of jelly...

bobones

Imposter wrote:

If correct, that would imply that the DeRosa frame is actually compressing/flexing in order to deflect the impacts from these bumps in the road. If that's the case, I'm guessing the bike must handle like a bowl of jelly...

You'd be wrong then.

imposter2.0

bobones wrote:

Imposter wrote:

If correct, that would imply that the DeRosa frame is actually compressing/flexing in order to deflect the impacts from these bumps in the road. If that's the case, I'm guessing the bike must handle like a bowl of jelly...

You'd be wrong then.

"Stiff yet compliant" Help me out though - what physical processes do you think are at work here..?

svetty

Imposter wrote:

bobones wrote:

Don't know about that. I recently replaced my Scott CR1 (carbon) frame with a De Rosa (also carbon) and there is a massive difference in comfort level in favour of the De Rosa with the same tyres , pressures, wheels, bars etc. I can feel every bump in the road through my damaged wrist with the Scott such that I used to remove my hand from the bars to avoid the impact whereas the De Rosa just glides over the same bumps with virtually no pain to my wrist. I was always a bit sceptical about how much difference a frame can make, but it's actually quite astonishing.

If correct, that would imply that the DeRosa frame is actually compressing/flexing in order to deflect the impacts from these bumps in the road. If that's the case, I'm guessing the bike must handle like a bowl of jelly...

You really haven't ridden a modern carbon frame? Just as with any other frame material carbon frame tubing can flex. Thing with carbon is that you can tune the tube to perform in a particular way by altering the lay-up and orientation of the fibres - this isn't all that easy with metal tubing. Not sure why you find this problematic.

bobones

Imposter wrote:

bobones wrote:

Imposter wrote:

If correct, that would imply that the DeRosa frame is actually compressing/flexing in order to deflect the impacts from these bumps in the road. If that's the case, I'm guessing the bike must handle like a bowl of jelly...

You'd be wrong then.

"Stiff yet compliant" Help me out though - what physical processes do you think are at work here..?

The De Rosa fork probably is deflecting or absorbing more of the shock, but not so much that it adversely affects handling.

The converse to your hypothesis is that materials and construction of frames and forks cannot improve comfort unless they make the bike handle "like a bowl of jelly", which is just absurd. You are also implying that I am lying or mistaken, but believe me, the difference in comfort is not subtle, and the handling is perfectly fine.

I also have a Dolan Dual carbon winter bike, and I find it's much smoother than my 2 aluminium bikes (a Felt and a Trek) and a bit smoother than the same Scott, but the difference with the De Rosa and the Scott came as a big surprise to a sceptic like me as the only real difference is the frame/fork. One makes me wince in pain going over bumps and the other doesn't.

imposter2.0

Svetty wrote:

You really haven't ridden a modern carbon frame?

Oh, but I have. I ride a 'modern carbon frame' (whatever that means) most days. I was out on one earlier..

Svetty wrote:

Just as with any other frame material carbon frame tubing can flex. Thing with carbon is that you can tune the tube to perform in a particular way by altering the lay-up and orientation of the fibres - this isn't all that easy with metal tubing. Not sure why you find this problematic.

The point you're missing is that in order to absorb an actual 'bump' in the road, the frame would have to flex significantly - otherwise, where else would the energy go? Diamond-shaped frames are effectively 'springless trusses' and most, if not all, will flex less than the amount of movement that a tyre will offer you. Forks can be designed to flex more, but again there is a limit. Saying that frames will absorb road bumps really is nonsense, sorry.

imposter2.0

bobones wrote:

The converse to your hypothesis is that materials and construction of frames and forks cannot improve comfort unless they make the bike handle "like a bowl of jelly", which is just absurd.

Genuinely, frame material makes very little - if any - difference to how much 'comfort' a traditionally shaped frame or fork can offer. For the reasons mentioned earlier.

It's one of the reasons why people regularly claim on here that their steel/alu/titanium/carbon/whatever framed bike is the most comfortable they've ever ridden.

bobones

Imposter wrote:

bobones wrote:

The converse to your hypothesis is that materials and construction of frames and forks cannot improve comfort unless they make the bike handle "like a bowl of jelly", which is just absurd.

Genuinely, frame material makes very little - if any - difference to how much 'comfort' a traditionally shaped frame or fork
can offer. For the reasons mentioned earlier.

These guys don't agree with you.

https://calfeedesign.com/technical-white-paper-1/

Vibration and shock damping are two important factors that affect the cyclist. However, they are two of the least understood subjects in materials science. There are so many variables involved – including how atoms in a material absorb and dissipate vibrational energy, how the structure is built, what type of paint and plating are applied – that it is hard to predict how a structure will react to vibrational input. Composite’s vibration damping is far superior to any metal, which is why it is the preferred material for race car springs and high performance airplanes. The smooth ride quality is one of the first things people notice about carbon fiber bicycle frames.

imposter2.0

bobones wrote:

These guys don't agree with you.

https://calfeedesign.com/technical-white-paper-1/

Vibration and shock damping are two important factors that affect the cyclist. However, they are two of the least understood subjects in materials science. There are so many variables involved – including how atoms in a material absorb and dissipate vibrational energy, how the structure is built, what type of paint and plating are applied – that it is hard to predict how a structure will react to vibrational input. Composite’s vibration damping is far superior to any metal, which is why it is the preferred material for race car springs and high performance airplanes. The smooth ride quality is one of the first things people notice about carbon fiber bicycle frames.

I wouldn't expect them to agree, because they are trying to sell you expensive frames - but no amount of cod science changes the actual physics involved.

webboo

If that’s supposed to be a research paper should there not be references to their sources.

bobones

Imposter wrote:

I wouldn't expect them to agree, because they are trying to sell you expensive frames - but no amount of cod science changes the actual physics involved.

You seem to be the one spouting the cod science: your "springless trusses" model doesn't take account of any material damping effect, and the only energy loss you conceive is through large scale deflection. Taking your argument to its logical conclusion, you're basically saying that all frame and fork materials are identical in terms of comfort, which is clearly absurd.

imposter2.0

bobones wrote:

Imposter wrote:

I wouldn't expect them to agree, because they are trying to sell you expensive frames - but no amount of cod science changes the actual physics involved.

You seem to be the one spouting the cod science: your "springless trusses" model doesn't take account of any material damping effect, and the only energy loss you conceive is through large scale deflection. Taking your argument to its logical conclusion, you're basically saying that all frame and fork materials are identical in terms of comfort, which is clearly absurd.

Not absurd at all - in fact that's pretty much the general conclusion. 'Vibration damping' and 'shock absorption' in this context are two very different qualities. You were talking earlier about shock absorption. A diamond frame (of any typical frame material) will not absorb shocks, it will deflect them. Tyres will absorb a certain amount of the energy, but the frame won't take any without flexing. And flexing in a vertical plane is going to be very difficult for a frame of that shape. If you're going to disagree with that, you're going to need a lot more than a technical sales brochure from a frame builder.

bobones

Sorry, whose general conclusion is this? The general conclusion I know is that most people think carbon bikes feel smoother than aluminium. Anyway, I was taking about the difference between 2 carbon bikes of different design, and you seemed to imply there could be no difference there either.

If materials and design make no difference to comfort, how do you explain that I can feel a clear difference between bikes with identical wheels, tyres and bars? I am not talking about anything subtle here: one makes me wince in pain and take my hand off the bars, and the other doesn't. When you asked, I said "the De Rosa fork probably is deflecting or absorbing more of the shock, but not so much that it adversely affects handling". How do you explain it without (wrongly) assuming the De Rosa handles like a bowl of jelly?

imposter2.0

bobones wrote:

If materials and design make no difference to comfort, how do you explain that I can feel a clear difference between bikes with identical wheels, tyres and bars? I am not talking about anything subtle here: one makes me wince in pain and take my hand off the bars, and the other doesn't. When you asked, I said "the De Rosa fork probably is deflecting or absorbing more of the shock, but not so much that it adversely affects handling". How do you explain it without (wrongly) assuming the De Rosa handles like a bowl of jelly?

I can't explain your subjective opinion. I'm just saying that your experience is not supported by physics, or logic. If you swore you could see the face of Jesus in a biscuit, I couldn't explain that either.

bobones

Pain and swelling is not subjective opinion. My observations contradict your arguments and prove that you are wrong.

imposter2.0

bobones wrote:

Pain and swelling is not subjective opinion. My observations contradict your arguments and prove that you are wrong.

Pain and swelling are clearly physical realities. Your observations, however, prove absolutely nothing. They are just observations.

bobones

No, these observations provide a counter example to your proposition that bike frames and forks have no effect on comfort, and that constitutes proof that your proposition is false.

imposter2.0

bobones wrote:

No, these observations provide a counter example to your proposition that bike frames and forks have no effect on comfort, and that constitutes proof that your proposition is false.

It’s not ‘my proposition’ - and your personal anecdotes are nothing more than that.

cowboyjon

Jesus feckin christ, Imposter strikes again.

I have no idea why you aren't banned from the Internet, nevermind this particular forum.

imposter2.0

cowboyjon wrote:

Jesus feckin christ, Imposter strikes again.

I have no idea why you aren't banned from the Internet, nevermind this particular forum.

If you want to disagree, quit whingeing and come up with valid reasons why. Suggesting someone should be 'banned from the internet' for simply stating scientific truths is slightly extreme, to say the least. So either keep to the topic in hand, or go back to your Daily Mail...

imposter2.0

Sheldon's take on the frame 'stiffness' issue. It's not scientific in itself, but it is pretty much where the science is at..

Vertical stiffness
(Since this article deals with frames, the issue at hand is road shock transmitted from the rear tire to the saddle. Ride qualities experienced at the handlebars are to a large extent determined by the fork, as well as geometry, and flex in other bolt-on parts, but are unrelated to the choice of frame material.)
Much of the commonplace B.S. that is talked about different frame materials relates to imagined differences in vertical stiffness. It will be said that one frame has a comfy ride and absorbs road shocks, while another is alleged to be harsh and make you feel every crack in the pavement. Virtually all of these "differences" are either the imaginary result of the placebo effect, or are caused by something other than the frame material choice.

Bumps are transmitted from the rear tire patch, through the tire, the wheel, the seatstays, the seatpost, the saddle frame, and the saddle top. All these parts deflect to a greater or lesser extent when you hit a bump, but not to an equal extent.

The greatest degree of flex is in the tire; probably the second greatest is the saddle itself. If you have a lot of seatpost sticking out of a small frame, there's noticeable flex in the seatpost. The shock-absorbing qualities of good-quality wheels are negligible...and now we get to the seat stays. The seat stays (the only part of this system that is actually part of the frame) are loaded in pure, in-line compression. In this direction, they are so stiff, even the lightest and thinnest ones, that they can contribute nothing worth mentioning to shock absorbency.

The only place that frame flex can be reasonably supposed to contribute anything at all to "suspension" is that, if you have a long exposed seatpost that doesn't run too deep into the seat tube, the bottom end of the seatpost may cause the top of the seat tube to bow very slightly. Even this compliance is only a fraction of the flex of the exposed length of the seatpost.

The frame feature that does have some effect on road shock at the rump is the design of the rear triangle. This is one of the reasons that touring bikes tend to have long chainstays -- they put the rider forward of the rear wheel. Short chainstays give a harsh ride for the same reason that you bounce more in the back of a bus than in the middle...if you're right on top of the wheel, all of the jolt goes straight up.

Where Comfort Comes From
If you're looking for a comfortable ride, it is a mistake to focus on the particular material used to build the frame. There are differences in comfort among different bikes, but they are mainly caused by:
Tire choice. Wider, softer tires make more difference to ride comfort than anything to do with the frame. Unfortunately, many newer sport bikes are poorly designed when it comes to tire clearance. For the last decade or more there has been a fad to build frames with very tight tire clearance, although there is no performance advantage whatsoever to such a design. Such bikes cannot accept anything but super skinny tires, and, as a result, there's no way they can ever be really comfortable. See my Article on Tires.
Saddle choice. See my Article on Saddles.
Frame geometry. Generally, frames with longer chainstays, and less vertical seat-tube and head-tube angles are more comfortable. This doesn't make them any slower, but may reduce maneuverability (also known as twitchiness.)
Rider positioning and technique in riding over bumps. See my Article on Pain and Cycling
Suspension, if the bicycle has it. A sprung saddle or suspension seatpost also can make a big difference.

cowboyjon

Imposter wrote:

cowboyjon wrote:

Jesus feckin christ, Imposter strikes again.

I have no idea why you aren't banned from the Internet, nevermind this particular forum.

If you want to disagree, quit whingeing and come up with valid reasons why. Suggesting someone should be 'banned from the internet' for simply stating scientific truths is slightly extreme, to say the least. So either keep to the topic in hand, or go back to your Daily Mail...

I have no intention of getting into any kind of debate with you, whether you are right or wrong.

My issue with you is no matter the topic, you will find a way to pick a fight with someone and derail the thread with your nonsense.

As far as I can see there's a lot of people absolutely sick of listening to you and your opinions and I don't doubt they end on this forum.

I have no idea what you bring to the table other than negative vibes and pettiness, hence you should in my opinion be sent to the shadow realm, never to be seen again.