I have a budget of about £1k (not cycle 2 work scheme). I have been advised to spend more time on the road because of an injured back and the plan is to get decent numbers of miles in between now and next spring. I have a winter hack bike (fixie with big tyres) but come spring/summer I'll be wanting a decent machine (cos I am a bike tart!).

A roadie mate of mine recommended a carbon framed bike to cut down on the road buzz etc and this seems like a really good idea to me but that is where the problems start.

When I used to ride on the road there were three real choices, a road bike, a time trial specific bike or a tourer. Nowadays there seems to be so much more choice and therefore scope to get things wrong.

On the premise that a carbon bike is the right thing to buy I need to decide whether a sportive type bike is better for me than an out and out race bike. Now I know that once I get back into black stuff riding I'm going to want to go faster and faster and will probably be drawn back into the time trail scene albeit without pointy hats, shaved legs, lycra overshoes etc. From what I understand, the sportive type geometry/gearing just won't cut the mustard but, on the other hand, if I go for a full on race bike again, then the ride/geometry etc will be far less accommodating.

From another viewpoint, if I was to compromise and go for an alu bike with carbon stays/forks etc then I would get a far better bike (overall) for the money but I may not get the ride comfort I am looking for. Assuming carbon forks are taken for granted at this price point, would a carbon post alone help cut down the road "noise"?

How much does the sportive geometry handicap you when time trialling? I used to be quite good, not a star but certainly putting in respectable(club) times, short 59s on a 25 and short 23s on a 10. While I would never get back to that sort of speed, I would be doing my best to get as close as possible so it would translate to trail speed when I do ride off road (but that is another story).

So here I am, having spent ages on the web researching bikes etc, talking to mates, test riding and wasting hours in shops and I am more confused than when I started… and to keep the wags on the forum happy, I have 3 mtbs so I don't need another so please don't tell me I do! 🙂

One word. "Steel"

Personally I think that a racy geometry will knacker your back up mfar more than riding poorly surfaced roads on an Alu bike, but anyhoo…

Could you get a moderately racy geometry and flip the stem for every day rides?

ditto, sportive bikes are just road bikes with longer HT's (and half a degree off the angles)

get a racer and flip the stem if its uncomfortable.

You can make a stiff carbon frame and a compliant alu one, so dont discount one or the other. Cannondale and specialized have a reputation for being more comfotable than most, Trek for being more racey.

You could do well on a normal road bike in a TT, just stick on some TT cli-ons for flatter courses and make a cheep DIY rear disk for the pro look 🙂

One word. "Steel"

Only if you buy a fancy one (and thats not happening in that budget).

I understand what you say about getting decent times in TT's in the past but if the ultimate goal is to transfer that over to faster trail speed, who cares what the clock says; it's how much you improve over the same course / with the same equipment that will transfer to faster trail speed. You could be on a kids trike – as long as your lungs are bleeding by the end you'll be getting the desired effect 😉

Your admission that having a sportive bike won't 'cut the mustard' in the TT makes a bit of a mockery of that goal, it sounds more like you want fast TT times again in which case why not go the whole hog of overshoes, shaved legs and pointy hats as well?

i'm not sure about the 'carbon to make it comfy' line; all the carbon frames i've ridden have been way too stiff for me and my back.

the last one i tried shook my teeth out and shattered my thumbs it was so unforgiving.

i'll stick with my flexy ally frame thanks!

i'm yet to try a new steel road frame…

Go to as many bike shops as you can, and look at the £1000 bikes, then choose one based on how it feels. No need to stress about it, and no need to worry about the material either; all this 'carbon rides like this', 'alu rides like that', 'steel rides the best' stuff is cobblers.

It's hard to buy a dog these days, and the £1000 limit is a very competitive part of the market.

As for testing, I'd say get a decent road bike; the 'sportive' models are a bit higher at the front, but are usually designed to be ridden with a couple of spacers under the stem, so you can get down flat as you like, then bang some clip ons on and fill yer boots.

…and unless you are really poo, a 59 for a 25 should be acheivable.

carbon isn't all that (unless you spend a fair bit) i wouldn't dismiss ally or steel. carbon isn't always lighter either.

theotherjonv –

Your admission that having a sportive bike won't 'cut the mustard' in the TT makes a bit of a mockery of that goal

Not sure I totally agree with that comment, it is just I know that I'll end up pushing myself to my limits again and the fact that my good times were 15 years ago won't matter when the red mist descends. Your comment about it not mattering unless my lungs are bleeding is a good one and well put, I totally agree but it doesn't make any difference once I get the competitive urge.

I used to have a steel road bike, two in fact. My last one was a custom Fuquay and was brilliant, fast, relatively comfortable and just about excellent. It was however, a full on TT machine with Hed Deep (front and rear) wheels etc but it has long been sold as have the wheels and all the gear (but I never did have a pointy hat or any of the other gear).

I used to have a Specialized Tarmac Comp. Very fast, light as ****, but very stiff and uncompromising – Not sure where people are coming from when they describe carbon frames as 'reducing road buzz' – I just found it numb and a bit harsh, but that's my opinion, and it's fairly obvious that a lot of folk love them. I'd advise you to try one out before you part with any cash, if possible.

but by that token, it sounds like you need to beat your times again in which case why handicap yourself at all? You'll happily eschew the benefits of silly hats but won't compromise on the bike – so why not go all out and get a TT bike as well?

I understand you, I'm playing devil's advocate to some extent, but really it sounds like you're transferring to a road bike due to issues with your back / posture so your principle goal should be to get something that will be comfortable and forgiving enough to spend longer rides on, and after that see where that takes you when you TT it.

You can make your lungs bleed on a supermarket shopper if you want, and unless you're TT'ing against a bunch of up their own arses TT specialists, TBH I'd be more impressed by a bloke that turns in 27 minute times on a shopping bike than a bloke doing 24 minutes on a full carbon everything ATGNI TT specific.

Unless you're planning to win the club 10, forget your past. Get a bike you can ride day in day out, set a time on it, and then get faster from that point. That's what would impress me.

Unless you're planning to win the club 10, forget your past. Get a bike you can ride day in day out, set a time on it, and then get faster from that point.

Yeah, you are probably right…. in fact I know you are so therefore, don't rule out the more relaxed geometry sportive type bikes, that's where you are going isn't it?

As mentioned above, try out as many bikes as you can. I've seen heavy carbon bikes, light alu bikes, stiff as hell steel ones – it's a very competitive price point and manufacturers will try anything to get their Unique Selling Point.

Sportive bikes are a relatively new phenomenon, some are excellent, some do what certain Womens Specific bikes did in the early days – chuck a higher stem and compact chainset on and have done with it.

Try as much as you can from as many different shops as possible. Now is a good time to buy since the 2010 stuff is coming in, you should find most places discounting the 2009 models.

I think so. You know it makes sense.

If you want more rationale – i suspect you'll get more kit on a sportive frame at a price point than on a race ready one at the same price point (that's a guess mind)

And in any case – OK, you're 15 years older but bikes are 15 years better; so if you did get a super light carbon race bike with fantastic wheels and then got close to your previous times, it would all be down to the kit anyway, and where's the satisfaction in that.

Clean slate, it's the best option.

Ditto jonv: will your back injury be affected by posture? An arched back as happens on most racers and certainly the TT position is a pretty unnatural posture, with some back muscles (i forget their name) extended along the spine. Can't really imagine much worse than stressing a damaged back in a TT position. I've got a dodgy back and if I was to get another road bike would be look at something like a carbon Spec Roubaix – less racy than the Tarmac but probably a few hundred over your budget. Or a nice steel audax-style bike from Dawes etc.

STATO – Member

Only if you buy a fancy one (and thats not happening in that budget).

I dunno the market but it seems odd to me that you can get a decent carbon frame on a £1K bike but not a steel one. Odd, and stupid.

Right…. back the the drawing board then, not ignoring sportive type bikes, not fixating on carbon.

OPens up the field a bit but strangely, narrows it down too!

Watch this space!

I dunno the market but it seems odd to me that you can get a decent carbon frame on a £1K bike but not a steel one. Odd, and stupid.

Stupid why, when the market wants carbon, so that's where the economy of scale is? Steel frames on roadies are either cheap and nasty or boutique hand made by dwarves in Tibet – that's because there's not quite such a niche market as there is in MTBs where steel has acquired a strangely trendy image. Is a very good thing IMHO – steel frames are stupidly over-rated (including for MTBs).

How much does the sportive geometry handicap you when time trialling?

I don't think it will (all else being equal). In fact it might be better as you feel more relaxed on it and ride a straighter line.

For road racing the 'sportive geometry' is no handicap at all.
I have a Spesh Roubaix, i've used it in sportives, multi-day stage events, road races, and crits….. with a modest degree of sucess.

I am increasingly coming round to the view that the sportive geometry versus the racing geometry is all a bit of a a marketing man's wet dream encouraging people to own two or more bikes

There seem to be brands that have models clearly positioned on one or other camps (Spesh, Felt, Cervelo). For example the Felt F series has very short HTs whereas as other companies like TIME and Colnago seem to be offering full on race frames with HTs of the similar length to the Spesh and Cervelo Roubaix and RS respectively which are marketed as sportive frames.

More and more I find myself drawn to Trek and its philosophy of Pro and Performance fit based around the characteristics of the rider rather than the intended use of the frame itself.

I would go to a bike shop where they offer a proper bike fitting and then based on that look only at those manufacturers where their geometries and sizings are a natural fit to your body.

I'll disagree with you there strtobiker but only IMO. I personally felt handicapped when I had a sportive type frame, the one thing I couldn't get on with was the longer wheelbase. It definately seemed to lack punch when racing Crits and on climbs.
Thing is I had two and a half decades of racing steel framed bikes, 22" every time. Then after a fair old break from road riding I came back to all sorts of frame materials and geometries. I got it wrong a few times and so went for a Planet X (not wanting to waste more money) and it's absolutely bob on. Very very comfortable as well and more than capable of meeting my diminishing requirements.
I don't swear by the various fitting schemes either, some great riders totally defy these. And I believe you can actually require slight changes in set up after a while out riding that tests on a static frame will never pick up. You'll never know what perfect is until youv'e tried a few.

I've got 2 road bikes at the moment. A typical Trek 1.4 alu-frame/carbon fork and a Klein large alu tubed frame with carbon rear stays and carbon fork.

By a mile, the Klein is the stiffer and harsher ride … its boneshakingly rigid when on thin, high pressure tyres. To me, the biggest difference is coming from the rear stays. The treks are quite thin tubed stays, especially on the seat stays. The kleins are almost 3 times the size in carbon and all hydroformed shapes on the chain stays. When on the Trek and hammering down, I can feel the bike flex a little under power. I dont feel this on the Klein. The upside to that is that out and about, the Trek is generally a comfier ride as it takes a fair bit of the buzz out of the road. Dont be thinking that all carbon's are soft, and all alu's are harsh.

I've also personally found that as oldgit says, small adjustments on road bikes seem to make big differences. I initially wasn't really getting on with my Klein frame … too long a reach, but changing the stem for one 10mm shorter made a massive difference. Likewise on the Trek, twisting the bars upwards so that the hoods were 1cm higher than before made a huge difference to the comfort as well. Just like oldgit, these were things that came from being out and about for a while.

One thing I dont see mentioned is that you can take a huge amount of buzz out of the ride through tyres too. In the short term, larger tyres will have a little more softness too them compared to thin high pressure ones. OK, there will be a weight penalty (slightly) but i'd take that over your back pain any day.

As you admit yourself, you're looking to get the miles in, and then maybe improve later on …. so concentrate on something that will get the miles in for you. It needs to be comfy. The worst thing will be something which is fast, but after everyride, you're hurting.

The reality is that with most road bikes these days ( whatever their 'type' ) there are minimal differences in times out on the road. Differences which in the short term you shouldn't be worrying about.

Get something that fits you correctly, then worry about getting faster.

When on the Trek and hammering down, I can feel the bike flex a little under power. I dont feel this on the Klein.

Very plausible.

The upside to that is that out and about, the Trek is generally a comfier ride as it takes a fair bit of the buzz out of the road.

Extremely implausible – though it seems the existence of the above real difference often results in a difference in vertical flex being "felt" because you're expecting to.

One thing I dont see mentioned is that you can take a huge amount of buzz out of the ride through tyres too.

Not often mentioned because people attribute all that comfort or discomfort to the frame – in reality most of it is coming from the tyres (the rest in saddle and seatpost flex). Well done for recognising that!

Extremely implausible – though it seems the existence of the above real difference often results in a difference in vertical flex being "felt" because you're expecting to.

Perhaps. Having a bit more of a think about the differences: Another difference that probably contributes to the Trek having a smoother feel to the ride will be it has a thinner carbon seatpost where as the Klein has a bigger alu seat post.

So I'm not mad for thinking that the Vittoria CX Pave's actually feel comfortable as well as fast.

aracer – Member

Stupid why, when the market wants carbon, so that's where the economy of scale is? Steel frames on roadies are either cheap and nasty or boutique hand made by dwarves in Tibet – that's because there's not quite such a niche market as there is in MTBs where steel has acquired a strangely trendy image. Is a very good thing IMHO – steel frames are stupidly over-rated (including for MTBs).

Of course the market wants carbon – doesn't make it the best choice though, or else we'd all be reading the Sun.

I've ridden various alloy, carbon and ti frames both on and off road. Alloy can feel nice, ti too, most carbon I've ridden hasn't really done it for me (expecially a superlightweight storck I tried recently). For me steel offers the best combo of repair-ability, adaptability (eg I got disc mounts welded), value and ride quality. I'd love to know what a 531 equivalent mass produced taiwanese frame would cost – I bet it could be cheap.

The upside to that is that out and about, the Trek is generally a comfier ride as it takes a fair bit of the buzz out of the road.

Extremely implausible – though it seems the existence of the above real difference often results in a difference in vertical flex being "felt" because you're expecting to.

Sorry that's nonsence – you can easily feel the difference in different frames, all when running 23c tyres at 100psi.

One thing I dont see mentioned is that you can take a huge amount of buzz out of the ride through tyres too.

Not often mentioned because people attribute all that comfort or discomfort to the frame – in reality most of it is coming from the tyres (the rest in saddle and seatpost flex). Well done for recognising that!

You are saying the frame makes NO difference? PURLEAZZE!!!!

(I side a bit with JonV on this)

From what you've said (& replied), I honestly think you'd be better off bodging a hardtail mtb into a bike you can ride/train on the road, cheaply. Likely more "comfy" position, robust, no OCD desire to polish it (maybe) and plenty of scope to get you fit

… and then get the full-on boyracer TT bike as well 😀

Actually I have all three race bikes at the moment.
Full carbon, bars stem post chainset etc, Ultegra.
Alu, carbon forks & post, Dura Ace/105.
Steel, steel forks all Campag.
The carbon has it over the others every time. On a short 'training' ride I'll take either the carbon or Alu. On a long one the carbon or steel.

Sorry that's nonsence – you can easily feel the difference in different frames, all when running 23c tyres at 100psi.

So you can feel <0.5% difference in vertical flex? Can you tell when you've got 1psi less in your tyres? Or are you maybe feeling differences in horizontal flex/twist, and the wonderful human brain makes you think you're feeling a difference in vertical flex?

You are saying the frame makes NO difference?

No, I'm saying that there's no perceptible or significant difference in vertical flex – the geometry can still make a difference to comfort.

I'd love to know what a 531 equivalent mass produced taiwanese frame would cost – I bet it could be cheap.

Of course it could – though probably more expensive than an alu one. Woldn't make any economic sense though (if you think otherwise, why not set up a company importing them – if you were right there must be a killing to be made).

Are you not thinking about this the wrong way round? You should get the bike that fits you and the position you want. Get yourself down to a shop with a jig and get your preferred position measured. Then setup whichever bike you choose for this position.

The trouble with jigs, and I think I'm not alone in saying this*, is that you tend to find the position you think you are comfortable in and that often tends to be the position you have always ridden in… because you are used to it. This doesn't make it the best riding position nor the most effective though I do accept that those two may often be mutually exclusive. 🙂

*I know I read this in a CW many moons ago and Greg Fuquay said pretty much the same thing when he was measuring me up for my TT frame.

I am quite prepared to accept that I am totally wrong though.

So you can feel <0.5% difference in vertical flex? Can you tell when you've got 1psi less in your tyres? Or are you maybe feeling differences in horizontal flex/twist, and the wonderful human brain makes you think you're feeling a difference in vertical flex?

I'm asking why different frames can feel so different. Is flex the only factor? How about damping?

No, I'm saying that there's no perceptible or significant difference in vertical flex – the geometry can still make a difference to comfort.

This difference in comfort is due to ebing in a more comfortable position rather than ahy difference the geometry makes to the physical attributes of the ride yes?

I'm asking why different frames can feel so different. Is flex the only factor? How about damping?

Frmaes feel different due to differences in horizontal flex. You don't get damping without flex, and with far less than 1mm of flex to play with in the stays there's not a lot for any damping to do. Though I thought you like steel frames? Strange how steel springs need separate shock units as they don't have much damping themselves!

Length of the chain stays is one aspect of geometry that has a very obvious effect on comfort.

I didn't say I liked steel frames because they are well damped – my point is that that is a characteristic of a material that will effect how it fels.

I'm sorry I just can't accept that it's all horizontal flexf that makesframes feel different. I'm riding along upright, My COG is directly above the centre line of the frame, it's in one plane FFS!

Length of the chain stays is one aspect of geometry that has a very obvious effect on comfort.

But you said the frame doesn't flex significantly vertically so how can it?

All I know is that my aluminium Allez is awful to ride, harsh and flexy compared to my carbon Madone which feels like you're floating down the road.

That experience alone would point me towards a carbon frame frankly.

Ahhh…translating to "I give in" 😉

I'm sorry I just can't accept that it's all horizontal flexf that makesframes feel different.

Well I can't accept it's vertical flex that does, as they simply don't flex in that direction (not to any significant extent, compared to flex in tyres, saddle, seatpost).

But you said the frame doesn't flex significantly vertically so how can it?

Because longer stays will result in less saddle movement for a given rear wheel movement, even if everything is totally rigid. Basic geometry (in the maths rather than bicycle sense).

harsh and flexy

Wow, that's a pretty clever combination!

Ahhh…translating to "I give in"

Aimed at me? Because I've not been involved in this!

Wow, that's a pretty clever combination!

Yes it is, horrible bike to ride, you feel every bump, and the bottom bracket feels like it wavers all over the place. It's not even the bottom of the range model, and it still weighs more than my Epic. Dreadful bike.