Alu or Carbon

I'm looking to upgrade from my hyrbid and get a proper road bike in the new year.

Stretching the budget (and postponing the conversion of my hybrid to a touring bike), I think I can afford either a Planet X Carbon or else a Canyon Roadlite.

Main difference between the two seems to be what the frame is made of. The rest seems equivalent.

I'm looking to pick up a bike that I can start to do longer, comfortable spins on. I've no interest in racing.

I'm still a novice at all this, so advice would be welcome please!

Brian?

Carbon.

Wibbs

[old fart who swears by steel]100% agree with Brian. Carbon versus aluminium? If you can stretch the oul budget, carbon fibre all the way. Way better material. Higher strength, much more comfortable(Al is very harsh on the arse, with an oft horrid resonance on some surface IME*), much stiffer, longer service life(if you don't go mad light), easier to "tune" for different purposes and is repairable(the easiest and cheapest to do so of all the materials), which Al really isn't, oh and way lighter for the same strength. [/old fart who swears by steel]







*though IMHO anyway steel and especially Ti are ahead of it in the comfort and "feel" stakes. Any CF bike I've ridden felt quite dead by comparison, albeit comfortable

Seweryn

I would go for the Canyon.

It is not about the frame material, but about the way the frame is designed and how bike rides and handles.

feck sake lads

neither get yourself a good steel bike
Dave Hinds,
Paul Villers,
Bob Jackson
Thorn.
theres loads more just can't think at the moment but a top end steel bike will be hard to beat excellent ride quality affordable great paint work
lugged frames are feckin gorgeous :cool:

anyway thats my take on bikes

Hmm.. carbon consensus so far..

Anyone know anyone in Dublin who has either of the bikes?

Wibbs

Seweryn wrote: »

It is not about the frame material

All things equal/equivalent yes it is. If we were comparing one CF to another CF or one Al to another AL, then yes it would be down to all sorts of factors, but comparing across different materials? Taking two bikes with roughly the same components and geometry and quality of build the different frame materials will show... well differences. It comes down to objective physics. CF has a higher modulus of elasticity, dampens vibration better, is lighter for a given strength, has a higher fatigue limit and is more tunable and repairable. In pretty much every category CF wins compared to Al. About the only advantage Al would have is UV resistance.

feck sake lads wrote:

neither get yourself a good steel bike

Old fart approves. that said to get a good one, you're gonna be buying into a Pegoretti or one from your list and costs go up. Sure I'd dig a Peg etc, but with top end Campagmanoram(tm) kit on board you're looking down the barrel of 5 grand odd. You could go vintage, but that's a big minefield in of itself.

On top I'd add a Titanium frame. Comfort ain't in it. Won't rust and looks the dogs danglies and would be ideal IMH for the OP. Given Zed isn't looking to race this goes double IMHO. That said you're into digging deep in pockets again.

*Major aside(and possibly blasphemy )* it would be my humble that many of the road bikes these days are based on quite extreme geometry and lightness of the race bikes the public aspire to(and are advertised to want). Fine if you're a Wiggins or a Roche, built like a stripped down racing whippet that wants the lightest most responsive short wheelbase yoke you can get and with access to new bikes when required and a team of mechanics(and physios). Might not be such a great bet as a design for a bike that you "just" want to go for a spin on and have fun getting out in the air. The bike that someone like Eddie Merckx rode a grand tour on back in the day is a lot more relaxed a bike than what Wiggins et al climb onto now. Actually google some of the old greats and compare and contrast how less stretched out they are bike fit wise. Comparing to the car world(bannable blasphemy right there), yes a full on group A rally car is gonna be more fun than a roomful of puppies and some of the tech has come down to your average car and made our lives better, but you wouldn't want to drive one to Cork(I have. Trust me, well it was a group N...), or go to the shops in one.

RidleyRider

Aesthetically looking at both of the links you've posted there that PX is disgusting looking. The seat post and stem are hideous.

CF is the better material but there are other factors to take into consideration when buying any bike and some of that are the aesthetics. The Canyon is a much more aesthetically appealing bike IMHO, but the spec is probably going to be better on the PX.

If you could get PX to change the seatpost and stem to black then I think the PX would be the the way to go.

g0g

Deleted User wrote: »

Hmm.. carbon consensus so far..

Anyone know anyone in Dublin who has either of the bikes?

I have Roadlite 6.0 which I think is the same frame anyway with different colours but different groupset and other stuff.

FISMA

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm looking to upgrade from my hyrbid and get a proper road bike in the new year.

Check out a steel frame.

feck sake lads

Check these out before you buy carbon fantastic bikes
you have been warned :cool::cool::cool::cool:

http://www.cyclesgrandbois.com/gallery/index.html

Bigus

Px carbon all the way have a look at RT57 Planet X very comfy for your needs.

Brian?

feck sake lads wrote: »

Check these out before you buy carbon fantastic bikes
you have been warned :cool::cool::cool::cool:

http://www.cyclesgrandbois.com/gallery/index.html

I don't get the fascination with old steel bikes. Cycling to me has always been about incremental improvements in technology. If I can afford it I will buy the newest available equipment:

No way would I cycle a bike with shifters on the down tube. I did enough of that as a teenager.

Normal hoops or deep carbon rims? Give me deep carbon.

The latest Di2 groupsets. I want one now.

The list could go on.

Seweryn

RidleyRider wrote: »

Aesthetically looking at both of the links you've posted there that PX is disgusting looking. The seat post and stem are hideous.

The Canyon is a much more aesthetically appealing bike IMHO, but the spec is probably going to be better on the PX.

Yeah, and for that reason alone, I would go towards Canyon, the Planet bike looks horrible, as many other carbon frame bikes these days.
But the best way to find out your preference is to test ride both bikes.

Steel frame bike is another option of course.

Good Luck with your decision .

Idleater

Seweryn wrote: »

Steel frame bike is another option of course.

If you are in any way interested in a steel bike, check out Soma Fabrications. I've built a smoothie as my btw/winter/non race bike. Think it's about 500 for the frame so more than the other bikes but still reasonable for a good steel frame.

manwithaplan

Go with the Canyon.

Boards Man in Simple Answer Shocker

ps bamboo all the way

Wibbs

Brian? wrote: »

I don't get the fascination with old steel bikes. Cycling to me has always been about incremental improvements in technology. If I can afford it I will buy the newest available equipment:

Oh certainly and ditto, however newest isn't always necessarily better, or always appropriate to general use. I've seen that in other pursuits. I used to flyfish and while rods have come on in leaps and bounds in tech and I would use a carbon rod, I still used ancient tech silk lines. They were simply far better in use and presentation(though a pain in prep) compared to the latest polymer lines.

No way would I cycle a bike with shifters on the down tube. I did enough of that as a teenager.

Deffo a case of newer is far better and safer to boot.

Normal hoops or deep carbon rims? Give me deep carbon.

Grey area. Deep carbon rims can be heavier, far less compliant so less comfort, are mad money and far more vulnerable to crosswinds, they also require specialised brake pads and since carbon doesn't wick away heat as efficiently as alloy that can bring it's own issues(and can be grabby in feel). They're also more brittle. Advantages? Aerodynamics, though the difference for 90% of riders is pretty tiny and some cynics have suggested the deep section is great for advertising logos...

The latest Di2 groupsets. I want one now.

Another grey area. They're heavier, add complexity, forget about mix and matching components and do feel like a solution to a non existent problem. If they were programmable so you could have different sequential gear curves I could see some advantage alright, but so far they basically copy the mechanical. Personally speaking I always liked that the bicycle is human powered, no electromechanical assistance required so the leccy grupos don't appeal to me and aesthetically they look gank to my eyes. That's me being poncy mind you

Frame material wise? Yep generally newer is better. That said steel and Ti haven't stood still in the last 20 years either(funny enough Al kinda has). The nivachrome steels that came out really upped the game in a big way. Lighter, stiffer, but still with steels compliance and ride. There are more than a few builders out there knocking up steel bikes that come under the UCI weight limit. The problem there is cost. You're going to be paying for that. Ditto with Ti.

Beyond ad hype what has changed and what nearly always changes with progress is quality and consistency. Yes you could get high quality steel frames 20/30 years ago, but they were big money and 90% of steel frames were utter boat anchors. Al dropped the price and was more consistent, but there were also some dogs there too. CF has made an even bigger impact so today the cyclist has real nice choices in frame materials at really good prices and boat anchors thrown together by monkeys are a lot less common.

If I was younger of leg and brain and wanted to put a bike together today for general use and fun on two wheels? Personally I'd probably go for a cyclocross bike in CF, with the option of disc brakes, alloy wheelset with decent spoke count and option to go tubeless, with mid range Shimano running gear as spares and back up support is far better(and way more stuff and bargains secondhand). Why? A cross bike is more practical and versatile, fine for club runs, but also good for touring and can go "off road" with it.

Needabike

http://vimeo.com/45164169

Ole Rodrigo

I have the 2012 Roadlite 7 - great bike for the money. Although its at the entry level, the Roadlite is a good quality aluminium frame and I'd prefer that to a lower end carbon. I'm not sure that the value in the 2013 range is the same as the previous years, prices seem to have gone up quite a bit. Still, way nicer than the Planet X.

niceonetom

Fit. Fit, fit, fit.

Before you even consider material, figure out which bike would fit you best.

The PX is pretty racey, geometry-wise, while the Canyon is quite a bit higher at the front (at least it would be for me) though it has a slightly steeper seat tube.

That said, I can't see how anyone can consider these bikes in any way equivalent. It's not just alu v carbon, it's old tech v new (the alu is the new tech here btw), proprietary systems v easily available generic parts (canyons are full of awkward bit that you local LBS might struggle with), SRAM v Shimano (that would be an ecumenical matter), own-brand v Ritchey, 32 spokes handbuilts v low spoke count factory-built and, to my eye, pretty v not so much.

RidleyRider

niceonetom wrote: »

that would be an ecumenical matter.

Its the real Father Jack!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thanks guys for that. I'm now more confused.
I can't see the attraction of the steel bikes, to be honest. Wibbs, I lost you after the first post!

I would like to try out the bikes, but they aren't sold in an LBS. I know someone with a p/x, but a) he's a skinny midget and b) he lives in Germany!

For going on general spins; 1) what kind of profile should the frame be to get the most comfort? 2) Will Irish roads break up a carbon bike?

Seweryn

Deleted User wrote: »

I can't see the attraction of the steel bikes, to be honest.

Steel bikes in general look a lot nicer than other bikes imo, but it is probably up to personal taste.

Deleted User wrote: »

For going on general spins; 1) what kind of profile should the frame be to get the most comfort?

From these two, the Canyon will be more suitable, as it has more relaxed geometry.

Deleted User wrote: »

2) Will Irish roads break up a carbon bike?

Not necessarily. Carbon fibre frame is more fragile than metal, but purely for cycling on the road (not taking into account any knocks or bangs) you should be fine.

feck sake lads

Needabike wrote: »

http://vimeo.com/45164169

thanks for posting that it was brilliant.;)

RidleyRider

RidleyRider wrote: »

If you could get PX to change the seatpost and stem to black then I think the PX would be the the way to go.

Px are happy to do this.

RidleyRider

Deleted User wrote: »

Px are happy to do this.

Brilliant, that would answer that for me. Remember if the geometry is too racey you could just heighten the stem via the spacer rings.

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote: »

Thanks guys for that. I'm now more confused.
I can't see the attraction of the steel bikes, to be honest. Wibbs, I lost you after the first post!

Join a long queue there Zed :D

Seweryn wrote: »

Carbon fibre frame is more fragile than metal, but purely for cycling on the road (not taking into account any knocks or bangs) you should be fine.

I'd disagree there. Unless it's a really daftly light weightweenie CF frame carbon is a very strong material. The strongest on paper of all the frame materials. It's only weakness is if it becomes damaged and it can fail instantly in such circumstances, while steel and Ti will tend to fail progressively. While you could nurse a bent steel fork/cracked steel frame home, no way would you trust a CF in that case. Ditto for Al. However you can repair carbon far easier than other materials. TL;DR I wouldn't worry about the horror stories concerning carbon Zed. They're mostly hype and hearsay, even downright lies by those pushing other materials.

niceonetom wrote:

Fit. Fit, fit, fit.

Before you even consider material, figure out which bike would fit you best.

This +1000 I'd rather cycle a 30 year old lead filled Triumph Twenty that fit, than a 10 grand cervelo that didn't.

Seweryn

Wibbs wrote: »

I'd disagree there. Unless it's a really daftly light weightweenie CF frame carbon is a very strong material. The strongest on paper of all the frame materials.

Hard to argue here really. I never heard of a metal bike frame braking in half while riding, but I heard about a carbon fibre frame (from a top manufacturer) collapsing under normal road ride circumstances. Yes, it is a very strong material, but probably more difficult to quality control during manufacturing.

Wibbs

Oh in my younger and fitter days before Al and CF were but a dream (unless you were a rich bastid on an Alan or Vitus*) I reliably heard/actually saw quite a number of steel failures. These were high end bikes too. I recall a barely year old Rossin columbus SL letting go at the top of the chainstays, a "team" raleigh 531c break clean through the down tube above the bottom bracket and a mate had his face rearranged when said face made unfriendly acquaintance with the road after his 531 steel fork snapped clean off at the fork crown. He actually got a decent bit of compo money for that one. They were the ones that stand out now, but I can think of a couple of others. Ask any old fart or fartess who was around in all steel days and I'll bet he/she will have some similar stories.

All things being equal quality control during manufacturing is more an issue with steel than CF. Especially at the high end. It takes real skill and craftsmanship to do a good un and get the temps right and the braze flow right on a lugged frame, even more on a lugless. One reason why a good one is expensive and CF is cheaper with more profit margin for the makers. If you looked at a collection of old steel frames and you know what you're looking for you'll find remarkably few of top ten per cent quality.

Back then there was also the "oh those are too light and will break" about certain types of steel tubing, just like you hear about CF today. 753 was one such wives tale/a bloke in the pub told me, yet I never actually heard saw one that did**. We all like a bit of a scare story and "received wisdom" and chinese whispers(chinerello whispers?:)) and bad news travels a lot farther than "feck all happened" news. Damn near every subject has this. Put it another way, millions of CF bikes are out there and do any of us think the makers would risk their biz with potentially huge lawsuits if CF frames were spontaneously self destructing? I doubt it.

Luddite that I am, even though I really don't like the "feel" of them I'd trust a CF frame every day of the week and this is coming from someone who has snapped clean in half over half a dozen CF flyrods in my time, so you'd think me more wary than the average bear. Plus CF still has room for improvement and advancement. Along with Italian, US and British steel frame guys out there making lovely kit, there are also small scale craftsmen handbuilding CF frames and gorgeous they are too. CF can be just as "handmade" as any other frame material.









*I knew a kid in school who got an Al Alan for xmas. He wasn't into bikes and had horrible lights on it and the saddle right down with barely an inch of seatpost showing :eek: Had a go of one a couple of times. Light alright, but horrid whippy and soft yokes, like cycling rubber, you could actually feel the bottom bracket move sideways on pedaling. Then again Sean Kelly regularly hammered the fook out of the best cyclists at the time on one of those yokes. Says it all really.

**inc one non bikey guy I knew who had one and used it as a hack bike for college and then work locked to pillar and gate in all weathers for over ten years. The damn thing was fooked, bits of rust, chunks outa the paint, dents etc. 20 years later he gave it to a guy who restored it back to original spec and it's still going strong today. He rode that Italian Eroica thing on it. I'm reliably informed that Eroica translates as "Old farts on old bikes, excuse for a spin in nice countryside away from the wife and kids, wine and good food piss up". Good call.

feck sake lads

28 years later and i'm still riding my raleigh 753 and as good as the day it was made:cool:

Ole Rodrigo

Deleted User wrote: »

I would like to try out the bikes, but they aren't sold in an LBS. I know someone with a p/x, but a) he's a skinny midget and b) he lives in Germany!

You're welcome to have a look at the Canyon if you like. Although , at 175 cm I might not be far off a skinny midget either

thebouldwhacker

Brian? wrote: »

I don't get the fascination with old steel bikes. .

People have different tastes in style and practicality.

MrCreosote

Forget carbon and aluminium, and even steel.

Wooden frames are the way to go, check out these beauties:

http://www.renovobikes.com/

OK so they're in Oregon, and maybe out of the price range, but they ship worldwide...

Wibbs

thebouldwhacker wrote: »

People have different tastes in style and practicality.

I'd add in different tastes in "feel" too Whacker. Steel definitely feels different to ride to carbon, which feels different to aluminium.

Titanium was the most "comfortable" material I've had a go on, followed by steel(if it's a good one), carbon after that(I found it "dead" in feel) and aluminium at the bottom(harsh). Stiffness kinda went the other way, with Ti at the bottom, followed by steel*, followed by Al with Carbon at the top. Weight goes Carbon, Ti, Al with steel at the bottom. That's comparing high end like with like as there are plenty of high end steel frames that would be well lighter than mid range Al and you can build a Steel/Ti bike that overall would be lighter than a mid range Carbon bike.

Personally I think it's bloody brilliant to live in a time when we have that many choices and can even mix and match materials. IE Steel/Al/Ti with carbon forks/chainstays. Hell you can even buy a wooden bike frame which are apparently gorgeous*EDIT( MrCreosote got their first:D). Bound to find one that suits you and your pocket. Add in pretty cheap but very well made components from various makers and we've never had it so good.






*steel can really vary here, many old steel tubesets were/are very floppy, while some, especially the newer nivachrome type with oversize chainstays etc are stiffer than a bishop in a hoorhouse.

Seweryn

MrCreosote wrote: »

Forget carbon and aluminium, and even steel.

Wooden frames are the way to go, check out these beauties:

http://www.renovobikes.com/

OK so they're in Oregon, and maybe out of the price range, but they ship worldwide...

Yeah, comfort wise there is nothing else that stands up to a nice wooden bike.
But you don't need to go into the trouble of shipping worldwide. There are nice bikes made over here. I have had the pleasure of test riding one of these :cool:.

Recommended!

Wibbs

Those Woodelos look niiiice. God's own carbon fibre, in constant production and testing in extreme conditions for 400 million years. Great to give a local guy some business too and use local renewable resources with it. We've been making ash hurls(among many other things) for long enough so we've got our shít down there. Hell we've been using wood for at least 400,000 years so bike frames are a given for the stuff.



I'd love to see one with some bog oak or yew highlights. Actually "Modern" Yew might be an interesting wood to try out. Use the different properties of that wood. The sapwood is great in tension, while the heartwood is good in compression, hence they made longbows out of the stuff and they're very strong. You could have fun tuning those traits(I'm thinking rear triangle). Plus varnished yew is the sex colour wise. Cost might be an issue mind you.

The options of customising those frames are near endless. Flaming the grain would be niiiice. Sunburst candy colours another option like a Gibson Les Paul guitar. Actually the logos look like decals, what about flaming the logos on? Easy enough to rattle up a metal printing block, heat it up and voila. Cheaper in the long run too. Maybe get a graphic designer chap or chapesse to make the writing look less plain?

Seweryn

Wibbs wrote: »

Actually the logos look like decals, what about flaming the logos on? Easy enough to rattle up a metal printing block, heat it up and voila. Cheaper in the long run too. Maybe get a graphic designer chap or chapesse to make the writing look less plain?

I actually discussed the bike Logo presentation with the bike Designer / Builder, as this would the first detail I would change in the whole bike. Everything else is up to scratch and the handling and the ride quality is excellent. As per my review, the bike rides smoother than any other bike I have ever test ridden (carbon fibre, all metals, etc.).

The construction of the bottom bracket is very interesting, well designed and feels very, very stiff. I saw how it is engineered and assembled and cannot imagine getting it done any better way, but I am no carpenter or wood specialist either .
All in all, a well put together machine for someone looking for a great handling road bike with the maximum amount of comfort possible.

Not to rerail the thread or anything (although I'm learning a huge amount about bikes!), but I saw some dude zip along the quays on his p/x. But for he was on the wrong side, I was nearly tempted to ask him to stop for a second!

Does anyone know anyone who has a P/X or Canyon and who is a 'large' (6"0 or so) build?
I don't want to fork over the cash without trying out the frames first!

letape

Needabike wrote: »

http://vimeo.com/45164169

I have to say I enjoyed that! I would definitely consider a steel frame. No doubt Reynolds 953 frames are expensive but the material make a beautiful frame, that would last for years.

Brian?

thebouldwhacker wrote: »

People have different tastes in style and practicality.

They do indeed. I just don't get it.

Brian?

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh certainly and ditto, however newest isn't always necessarily better, or always appropriate to general use. I've seen that in other pursuits. I used to flyfish and while rods have come on in leaps and bounds in tech and I would use a carbon rod, I still used ancient tech silk lines. They were simply far better in use and presentation(though a pain in prep) compared to the latest polymer lines.

Deffo a case of newer is far better and safer to boot.

Grey area. Deep carbon rims can be heavier, far less compliant so less comfort, are mad money and far more vulnerable to crosswinds, they also require specialised brake pads and since carbon doesn't wick away heat as efficiently as alloy that can bring it's own issues(and can be grabby in feel). They're also more brittle. Advantages? Aerodynamics, though the difference for 90% of riders is pretty tiny and some cynics have suggested the deep section is great for advertising logos...

You missed the most important metric wheels are measured by: looks. Deep carbon rims look bad ass. I have 55mm wheels, which aren't that deep admittedly, and love them. The only problem I find is the are a little grabby descending, but I am used to it now.

Another grey area. They're heavier, add complexity, forget about mix and matching components and do feel like a solution to a non existent problem. If they were programmable so you could have different sequential gear curves I could see some advantage alright, but so far they basically copy the mechanical. Personally speaking I always liked that the bicycle is human powered, no electromechanical assistance required so the leccy grupos don't appeal to me and aesthetically they look gank to my eyes. That's me being poncy mind you

Sorry but Di2 passes the test to me. It's cool as feck. If I had the money I would own it. It's smoother shifting and more reliable long term. No more broken cables.

Frame material wise? Yep generally newer is better. That said steel and Ti haven't stood still in the last 20 years either(funny enough Al kinda has). The nivachrome steels that came out really upped the game in a big way. Lighter, stiffer, but still with steels compliance and ride. There are more than a few builders out there knocking up steel bikes that come under the UCI weight limit. The problem there is cost. You're going to be paying for that. Ditto with Ti.

Beyond ad hype what has changed and what nearly always changes with progress is quality and consistency. Yes you could get high quality steel frames 20/30 years ago, but they were big money and 90% of steel frames were utter boat anchors. Al dropped the price and was more consistent, but there were also some dogs there too. CF has made an even bigger impact so today the cyclist has real nice choices in frame materials at really good prices and boat anchors thrown together by monkeys are a lot less common.

If I was younger of leg and brain and wanted to put a bike together today for general use and fun on two wheels? Personally I'd probably go for a cyclocross bike in CF, with the option of disc brakes, alloy wheelset with decent spoke count and option to go tubeless, with mid range Shimano running gear as spares and back up support is far better(and way more stuff and bargains secondhand). Why? A cross bike is more practical and versatile, fine for club runs, but also good for touring and can go "off road" with it.

The ultimate question for me is: what do the pros ride? They ride carbon. That's what I want. On top of that I can honestly say the feel of riding a carbon bike to me is better than steel any day.

thebouldwhacker

Brian? wrote: »

They do indeed. I just don't get it.

I see circles within circles.
It seems to bother you that you don't get it. Live and let live, circle of life init... You'll be fine.

Brian?

thebouldwhacker wrote: »

I see circles within circles.
It seems to bother you that you don't get it. Live and let live, circle of life init... You'll be fine.

I will be am fine. It doesn't upset me in any way. I am merely pointing out that I don't agree with the motivation.

Wibbs

Brian? wrote: »

You missed the most important metric wheels are measured by: looks. Deep carbon rims look bad ass.

Because you've been told they're "badass". From an objective aesthetic/design POV outside the sport you'll have a lot more nay's than yay's. read up on the golden rule and general design and that'll tell you that deep rim carbon wheels are more awkward than not in aesthetic terms. Read up on engineering/physics and your argument will recede into the distance even more. Don't get me wrong "badass" has it's place, but then again so did flared trousers at one time.

Sorry but Di2 passes the test to me. It's cool as feck.

Again you're coming from a position of it's "moderne" and "baddass" and "cool", with a slight function advantage. Slight as it stands anyway. The mechanical versions are lighter, look less awkward and don't require charging and will last longer so...

If I had the money I would own it. It's smoother shifting and more reliable long term. No more broken cables.

I can lay down money now and promise that in 20 years the current leccy systems will be rare museum pieces, but that won't matter to the mode de jour peeps. PLus how many people have broken derailleur cables? Hey I can see the advantages of leccy shifting, but hardly in it's current form.

The ultimate question for me is: what do the pros ride? They ride carbon. That's what I want.

They're paid to ride what they ride. More than ever this is the case. Very rare is the pro that personally favours campag/shimano/ram that sticks to that if the team decide otherwise. Look at the pro teams. They stick to the party line. You're buying into a marketing exercise as much as you are a technology if not more so. In any event you're not a "pro", not even close. Very few are. You're defo not close to a pro with the access to kit that is near throwaway for them. Their kit is like sharks teeth, largely disposable and another tooth/piece of kit is ready to replace it on a moments notice. You are buying the aspiration, more than you are buying the reality.

On top of that I can honestly say the feel of riding a carbon bike to me is better than steel any day.

How many steel/Ti/Al bikes have you ridden? I'd put good money down that the figure is small. Have you ridden a Peg or a Sachs or Mercian? I really doubt it. And that's just steel, never mind quality Ti or Al. Guess what frame material is the second most profitable to make? Buy the logo, buy the dream. Hey you've made your choice and that's cool and it's brilliant those choices are available, but make no mistake you're doing if for fashion as much as function. And that by the way is objectively provable.

Brian?

Wibbs wrote: »

Because you've been told they're "badass". From an objective aesthetic/design POV outside the sport you'll have a lot more nay's than yay's. read up on the golden rule and general design and that'll tell you that deep rim carbon wheels are more awkward than not in aesthetic terms. Read up on engineering/physics and your argument will recede into the distance even more. Don't get me wrong "badass" has it's place, but then again so did flared trousers at one time.

Again you're coming from a position of it's "moderne" and "baddass" and "cool", with a slight function advantage. Slight as it stands anyway. The mechanical versions are lighter, look less awkward and don't require charging and will last longer so... I can lay down money now and promise that in 20 years the current leccy systems will be rare museum pieces, but that won't matter to the mode de jour peeps. PLus how many people have broken derailleur cables? Hey I can see the advantages of leccy shifting, but hardly in it's current form.

They're paid to ride what they ride. More than ever this is the case. Very rare is the pro that personally favours campag/shimano/ram that sticks to that if the team decide otherwise. Look at the pro teams. They stick to the party line. You're buying into a marketing exercise as much as you are a technology if not more so. In any event you're not a "pro", not even close. Very few are. You're defo not close to a pro with the access to kit that is near throwaway for them. Their kit is like sharks teeth, largely disposable and another tooth/piece of kit is ready to replace it on a moments notice. You are buying the aspiration, more than you are buying the reality. You're an ad man's wet dream.

How many steel/Ti/Al bikes have you ridden? I'd put good money down that the figure is small. Have you ridden a Peg or a Sachs or Mercian? I really doubt it. And that's just steel, never mind quality Ti or Al. Guess what frame material is the second most profitable to make? Buy the logo, buy the dream. Hey you've made your choice and that's cool and it's brilliant those choices are available, but make no mistake you're doing if for fashion as much as function. And that by the way is objectively provable.

I'm going to leave it here. We have differing opinions on the matter, which is fine by me.

If people want to buy steel bikes good luck to them.

The only thing that genuinely upsets me is you not liking deep carbon wheels. The horror

BailMeOut

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm looking to upgrade from my hyrbid and get a proper road bike in the new year.

Stretching the budget (and postponing the conversion of my hybrid to a touring bike), I think I can afford either a Planet X Carbon or else a Canyon Roadlite.

Main difference between the two seems to be what the frame is made of. The rest seems equivalent.

I'm looking to pick up a bike that I can start to do longer, comfortable spins on. I've no interest in racing.

I'm still a novice at all this, so advice would be welcome please!

OP,

Was in same situation as you being a novice and was cycling a alu hybrid for last 5/6 years. Just treated myself to a full carbon and notice a huge comfort difference on our fine Irish roads. I got some great advice and ideas here that you might want to check out. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056758041

BailMeOut

BailMeOut wrote: »

OP,

Was in same situation as you being a novice and was cycling a alu hybrid for last 5/6 years. Just treated myself to a full carbon and notice a huge comfort difference on our fine Irish roads. I got some great advice and ideas here that you might want to check out. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056758041

thanks for that.

How are you finding the road bike?

BailMeOut

Deleted User wrote: »

thanks for that.

How are you finding the road bike?

So far so good and no regrets yet. I have done a few trips (300km) on it and really do like the new bike but it is taking some getting used to since the riding position is so different than I am used to. I have a few aches in places that never ached before but this is getting better. Amazingly though my speed on the carbon is really only marginally faster that from my hybrid which surprised me.