Canyon ultimate CF v CF SLX

Smalltom

Just looking at the two of these frames and I can't see any difference bar the price. Both are equally comfortable/stiff/same geometry etc. Can anyone shed any light on it. Think there is a 100g weight difference Between them.

cython

Smalltom wrote: »

Just looking at the two of these frames and I can't see any difference bar the price. Both are equally comfortable/stiff/same geometry etc. Can anyone shed any light on it. Think there is a 100g weight difference Between them.

CF SLX has the Canyon aero cockpit as one difference anyway, and the seatpost clamping mechanism is also different (again for aero reasons). CF SLX also listed as being lighter on the product page (.79kg vs .94kg). They both fall under Canyon's sport pro geometry, so would expect similar geometry, but the SLX basically adds more polish and aero features, as far as I can tell.

thekooman

couldn't imagine a huge difference... spend the difference on some coaching and a powermeter and you'll reap the benefits of that more than 100g. that is if you are racing. if you want something sparkly get the SLX.

Unknown Soldier

Smalltom wrote: »

Just looking at the two of these frames and I can't see any difference bar the price. Both are equally comfortable/stiff/same geometry etc. Can anyone shed any light on it. Think there is a 100g weight difference Between them.

The 2015 CF SLX and and CF SL were the same bike bar some sort of technological wizardry on the SLX version via its carbon structure/frame. I have no idea what the wizardry was but I am sure it can be found.

However...

The 2016 CF SLX is different from the 2015 version. The Geometry has been tweaked, a lot. there is no seat clamp either.

If you open up an SL Frame and also an SLX frame, and compare the geometry side by side you will see what I mean.

When I did this a few weeks ago I was left with the impression that the SLX is now filling in a gap between the current SL (Old SLX) and the AEROAD.

The 2016 SLX seems a tad more aero and aggressive.

Fian

There is a problem facing people selling goods in geenral - they can't price on an individual basis.

Ideally for a producer they would like to price their goods differently for someone who is not price sensitive than for someone who is. Instead they generally find themselves having to set a price that accomodates a tension between maximimising their margin and minimising the number of customers they price out of their market.

So someone selling coffee in a stand on wall street. Some of the customers (investment bankers) are buying the coffee and couldn't care less whether it costs €3 or €30 - they buy it because they feel like it and like the coffee and teh price is completely irrelevant since they are making 7 figures per annum. The cleaners working in the same buildings would not buy a $10 coffee. So the vendor compromises and fixes coffee at a price where he figures he maximimises profit, taking as much margin as he can get away with without pricing too many customers out of his market.

Anyway he comes up with a bright idea, he is going to get the customers themselves to "self select" into those who are price sensitive and unwilling to pay high prices, and those who want a premium product and are indifferent to the price of a cup of coffee. He sells his americano at €2 and he sells a fancy "Kopi Luwak" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kopi_Luwak )coffee at $20
and various lattes, mochas and cappuccinos in between.

Now he can charge big money to the big spenders without driving off his price sensitive customers. His customers will self select into whichever demographic they fall into and depending on how much they are willing to spend on coffee. In some cases the difference between many of the products are negligible, apart from price and vague marketing gimmicks.

Applying the exact same rationale most brands have a variety of products from value to premium. an most customers will happily self select into the purchasing demographic depending on how price sensitive they are. So you have a range of cars available from ford (and also a range available from Ferrari) with a large spectrum of prices within each brand. Same with bikes. You can buy a "Mach3" razer from gillette for a good deal less than the newest "pro-glide fusion". You can buy own brand products from tesco that are literally identical (except for packaging and price) to branded products which cost more, they are even made by the same manufacturer, in the same factory and then just boxed into different boxes at different price points.

So if you don't see a difference between two frames or if the difference appears to be largely irrelevant in practical terms it is probably because you are being invited to self select by the vendor.

None of the foregoing is intended to suggest buying premium products is foolish, even if objectively they are poorer value. It is perfectly ok to be willing to pay a premium for a premium product. All i am doing is offering a potential (and probable) explanation for the difference in price between two frames that appear to be objectively similar in quality.

Smalltom

Basically I guess the bottom line is the €1000 difference between the frames and trying to justify it which I'm finding hard to do after breaking a frame this year racing already. I'm sure an extra bit of training would offset the difference in aero benefits/carbon layup etc etc!