I'm thinking about treating myself to a new bike for this year and want to get something that will be fast enough to race on. I'm likely to be getting the bike from a manufacturer here in Germany who has just released a range of carbon framed bikes. The bottom of their carbon range costs just over €2,000 which compares with their second top of the range alluminium framed bike. The difference is that the ally bikes comes with dura ace while the carbon bike comes with ultegra.
Question is which one would you choose? The bikes weigh 7,1 kg and 7,4 kg respectively - is this light enough to be competitive? Are there any disadvantages to having a Carbon framed bike?
Have a play with this - its all in Germany but you'll get the idea.
http://www.canyon.de/rennraeder/vergleich.html
Comments
personally I'd go carbon given the choice as it will be more comfortable than aluminium.........alu's fine for short distances but carbon is much more forgiving over long rides - less road buzz.......
there's not a great deal between Ultegra and Dura-Ace (personally I'd go Campag!) and you can always upgrade the components later if finances allow.......
strange that the are charging less for a triple setup on the Roadmaster than a double; but the other way around on the Carbon - there may be a mistake there as triples should cost more....
I have ultegra componants with a double at the front - an improvement over Tiagra front and 105 rear derailleurs on my old bike. Yet to miss a gear.
Dave
if you are doing long rides, i'd go carbon every time. but if you only do shorter ones, then i'd see if you can try them out and see which you prefer.
on the rare occasions when i ride my alu bike (which was a top of the range trek a few years ago) i'm always surprised by how fast and responsive and stiff it feels. however, i think the fact that these are "rare occasions" speaks volumes - i rarely ride less than 70 miles on the road, so the carbon is much better
I will almost certainly go for a triple as I want the lower gears for climbing.
it feels like steel (so nearly as comfy as carbon and comfier than alu), responds quickly (especially with carbon rear stays), is very lightweight, and will last forever (doesn't corrode).........
was a close thing between carbon and Ti but went for the Ti on the grounds that Carbon was a bit "dead" for my liking (as Candy mentioned)
costs a fortune though!
my bike looks sexier than his though, as carbon can of course be sculptured into beautiful aero shapes.
its just a pity that i'm on top of it, spoils the aesthetic a bit
dura ace or the top of the range campagnolo one?? what's the difference? (particularly, will i be able to switch between chain rings without the fr*gg*ng chain falling off mist times?)
also, if i do this will i be able to bung a triple on? it currently has a double. however the IM Lanzarote course apparently has a hill or two.
Think my custom valkyrie comes in at about 1200 euro, but you can get non custom ones for less than 1000 yoyos.
Candy - go Campag Record - as it looks the bollocks as well with all the carbon bits......
and Campag doesn't need as much fettling as Shimano
and yes to a triple - I don't use the granny ring much but it's nice to know it's there when I am knackered or that hill is just too steep to bust a gut on........
I'm also a great fan of steel frames. Having ridden both aluminium and carbon, nothing beats the ride feel and handling of steel. But I love the way carbon climbs, so my new frame is a mixture of steel and carbon bonded tubing. Carbon chain stays and forks with steel seat, top and head tubes.
Considering I'm 90kg and a grinder, I despair...
Was going to go for an omega, but the bloke at the shop does both and said that airborne is comparable in quality, but significantly cheaper, due to it being made abroad. Seems a shame not to support british firms, but then at the time I wanted as good as I could get for the money.
also, i "go" on the bike.
My spd petals seem to have caught an std so will have to try and sort them out at the weekend
the key thing i learned is: dont wear socks. (at least, not on your left foot!)
also, if you wear those ridiculous bike ponce cycling shorts with the disposable nappies inside them, then going on the bike might cause problems.
i can report that louis garneau tri shorts have excellent wee wicking characteristics though!
one of my team mates in Florida did it in transition while he was sitting on the floor in the changing room putting his bike shoes on. filthy boy.
if it isn't going to wick away and evaporate within 5 minutes, then don't do it!!
imagine doing a 7 hour bike ride with your goretex bikesters dowsed in freezing cold p!$$? doesn't bear thinking about....
Omega are up there with Litespeed in quality terms..........
when Petal picked hers up last week they showed us the TT frame they are building for Michael Hutchinson........and with Sean Yates using their bikes as well that is some endorsement..........
we also saw a bike they are putting together for Chris Eubank - I nearly peed myself........it's most odd, but then that dosen't surprise me!!!
www.omegacycleworks.com
speak to Mark Reilly and say I put you in touch......he won't know me as FB though!!
Anyway, bit of an academic point since it's already been built and is getting shipped over as we speak (apparently, since they've just moved back the arrival date)