Bike recommendations ~€2500~

imurdaddy

Hi folks,

After a layoff with a bad back injury which was supposed to end my cycling days, luckily I have recovered well and have been riding fairly regularly and decided to treat myself to a new machine after Christmas. The only criteria that im not flexible on is the geometry needs to be relaxed and not all out race, budget up to €2500ish

Any suggestions?

Lumen

Loads of "endurance" bikes available now.

Cannondale Synapse, Rose CGF, Canyon Endurance CF.

Cannondale is probably a better frame but isn't as relaxed geometry and will have worse groupset for the price - with the Rose you can get 11sp Di2 for your budget:

http://www.rosebikes.com/bike/rose-xeon-team-cgf-3100-di2/aid:746473

Donie75

I'm very interested in the Rose CGF with Di2 myself. Looks like a great bike with a top spec. Has any boardsie got one? Care to share your thoughts on the bike?
Thanks.

ashleey

I've got the Canyon Endurace CF with Ultegra 6800 mechanical. You would struggle to find better value or groupset. There are some long lead in times though

cdaly_

You might look at a Spa Cycles touring bike (the SabbathSilk Routeis currently 29% off) or possibly the Audax Mk3 from Thorn. Both pretty relaxed geometry with the emphasis on longer distance and comfort rather than racing...

Beasty

Is geometry so much of an issue in reality? You have 3 contact points with a bike - your feet, hands and arse. You should be able to get the exact fit you are looking for by getting an appropriate size and adjusting saddle and bars position. Ride "comfort" is different though - tyre choice and pressure can influence that but the rest of it is down really to frame and wheels material and construction (together with generally less influential things such as bars and bar tape) rather than geometry (or am I missing something?)

BoardsMember

Beasty wrote: »

Is geometry so much of an issue in reality? You have 3 contact points with a bike - your feet, hands and arse. You should be able to get the exact fit you are looking for by getting an appropriate size and adjusting saddle and bars position. Ride "comfort" is different though - tyre choice and pressure can influence that but the rest of it is down really to frame and wheels material and construction (together with generally less influential things such as bars and bar tape) rather than geometry (or am I missing something?)

Interesting question, hope to hear some informed debate as this is something that has always intrigued me

Ole Rodrigo

I've found the greatest influence on comfort is lower upper body weight and regular kms ( then saddle, tyres, tyre width, frame material, bar tape, gloves etc. ).

I think relaxed geometry supports bigger riders by spreading weight more efficiently than tighter frames.

Lumen

Some endurance bikes have incredibly short top tubes and incredibly long head tubes.

For me that causes fit issues as I need to be stretched out for back comfort. A long stem just adds crazy amounts of rise.

Going a size down just makes the reach issue worse.

My custom frame, for instance has a 575mm TT. If I bought a CGF with that length I'd need a ladder to fit a Garmin.

TiBoy

Beasty wrote: »

Is geometry so much of an issue in reality? You have 3 contact points with a bike - your feet, hands and arse. You should be able to get the exact fit you are looking for by getting an appropriate size and adjusting saddle and bars position.

In a nutshell thats it.

braddun

I would buy in uk,better prices

TiBoy

If you can get your head around widening your choice beyond the geometry sportive thingy the Canyon Ultimate SL is superb and with models within your budget. I have ridden this bike btw.

( I can't add a link as I don't have sufficient posts, apologies)

ROK ON

I think that geometry can be significant.
I don't buy that it's just as simple as getting the 3 contact positions correct - even though it ought to be as intuitive as that.

I have one frame that if 52cm c-to-c top tube. I have a 100m stem on this with a certain (can't recall) stack height. It feels great and is my most comfortable bike.
Other two frames are 53cm and I use a 90mm stem. Both of these bikes feel as if they fit me less well than the other - even though the measurements (seat post height, drop, reach etc) are all the same. One bike simply feels too big even though te measurements are the same (saddle to bars distance and drop). One bike handles exceptionally well descending but I get back pain if climbing for a while (say 15mins plus).
Of the three the smaller frame with the longer stem feels the best.
With a spirit level and measuring tape all three bikes have same measurements to contact points - they ride differently.
I don't know why this is.

Get a frame that fits well (slightly smaller than you think IMHO) and then set up appropriately.

imurdaddy

Thanks for all the help, plenty to look in to. The canyon was all ready on my list but the likes of the rose are very interesting. Its great to even be looking at bikes again I really had resigned myself to never riding any distances again!

TiBoy

ROK ON wrote: »

I think that geometry can be significant.
I don't buy that it's just as simple as getting the 3 contact positions correct - even though it ought to be as intuitive as that.

I have one frame that if 52cm c-to-c top tube. I have a 100m stem on this with a certain (can't recall) stack height. It feels great and is my most comfortable bike.
Other two frames are 53cm and I use a 90mm stem. Both of these bikes feel as if they fit me less well than the other - even though the measurements (seat post height, drop, reach etc) are all the same. One bike simply feels too big even though te measurements are the same (saddle to bars distance and drop). One bike handles exceptionally well descending but I get back pain if climbing for a while (say 15mins plus).
Of the three the smaller frame with the longer stem feels the best.
With a spirit level and measuring tape all three bikes have same measurements to contact points - they ride differently.
I don't know why this is.

Get a frame that fits well (slightly smaller than you think IMHO) and then set up appropriately.

So many things can effect a bikes handling and it's relative comfort (as you probably know ROK) e.g.frame material and structure, tyres - (pressure size compound), saddle, seat post, etc, etc and geometry related stuff e.g. fork rake and trail.

Within the many variables I would'nt restrict new bike choice based on endurance/sportive versus race geometry. (I appreciate ROK that you are not suggesting this)

Daroxtar

What ROK ON said. If you have a bad back and you buy a race bike, the only way you will be comfortable riding it will be with a stack of spacers under the stem and it will look manky.

codie

Lapierre sensium would be a good option .The sensium 400 with loyalty discount at css is less than €2k.Comes with Ultegra 6800 and Mavic wheels.

cdaly_

braddun wrote: »

I would buy in uk,better prices

Don't forget to add 25% to translate to euros though.

TiBoy

Daroxtar wrote: »

If you have a bad back and you buy a race bike, the only way you will be comfortable riding it will be with a stack of spacers under the stem and it will look manky.

Not necessarily. I've a bad back - lower, middle and upper - and a dodgy neck to skull join. I use one average spacer under the stem. Depends on where you are starting from. My experience is you can lower position over time when done in small increments. You may not need to start out with a stack of spacers.

ROK ON

I said nothing about crazy spacer usage.
I have one spacer on two bikes and two on one.

I have also found that I am using less spacers now compared to seven years ago. Crazy spacer use is a sign of a poorly fitting bike.

Oh and on the subject of fit - is 'bike fitting' not the most blatantly idiotic marketing ploy.
Only you know your body - don't let anyone else tell you how a bike should feel to you.
It should after a while feel comfortable - everyone knows what comfortable feels like.
Can you keep your elbows bent or are you stretched?
Are your knees sticking out or are your legs to stretched?
It's not rocket science.

10 Carrolls

The one criteria that the OP said he wasn't flexible on was that the geometry had to be relaxed. He's the one recovering from injury so he knows what he needs better than anybody. I was in a similar position myself and changed from a road bike to a flat bar road bike. I haven't had a problem since, maybe or maybe not due to changing, I also lost weight and do a lot of stretching and core exercises. I do miss the choice the drop bars give you and also the gearing and now I want to go back to drops but the head keeps telling me not to in case I go back to square one. Anyway my point is, nobody knows the requirements better than the OP himself, so there's no point trying to tell him otherwise.

Beasty

Daroxtar wrote: »

What ROK ON said. If you have a bad back and you buy a race bike, the only way you will be comfortable riding it will be with a stack of spacers under the stem and it will look manky.

I have had 4 lower back operations. I still adopt an "aggresive" position on the bike. I get back spasms once or twice a year. Cycling helps get me over them and I am generally more comfortable cycling than walking when I have them. The only thing I tend to try and avoid when I have back problems is the TT bike. I am not suggesting this approach will suit everyone but your comments are very much an over-generalisation

givusapush

get yourself a wilier gtr or gts.i got a gtr ultelgra recently and love it

Daroxtar

ROK ON wrote: »

I said nothing about crazy spacer usage.
.....
.....
Crazy spacer use is a sign of a poorly fitting bike.

Sorry if my post implied that's what you said, I was just agreeing with you- that's my thoughts there about the spacers.
My friend has a bad back - fused discs- and do or die he had to get a Scott Foil. He needs 40 mm spacers and +17' stem to cycle comfortably. My bike is lower again than his, I don't know how he'd fit onto it at all. Having said that he can leave me for dust unless we're descending.