MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
Us UK domestic racers.
Not the best value, not what you have and not the most niche. But what is simply the best for propelling an amateur UK rider along. On lets say a typical 60 - 80 mile road race on British B roads and lanes.
My training ride has been delayed for an hour, so fire away.
For me it for some unexplained reason seems to be the top end Giants and cervelos.
As I'm still in 2004 regards MTB frames, would someone care to start one for them so I can get proper learned up.
best in what way ?
in a bunch or on your own ?
sprinty / stiff or comfy ?
can take bigger tyres to avoid flats ?
"technologically advanced" - meh, suspect that's mostly marketing
I'd guess that no modern "good" bike is meaningfully faster than another but they'll differ in fit mostly. If you want a soft bike then buy one that's made that way; if you want stiff then do that.
SuperSix Evo Black is the lightest production frame. It's the nano-fibered version of the SuperSix evo, with thin/no paint. Most of the aero frames seem to make similar claims, madone, Fo1l, propel, etc. So probably all equally 'advanced'. Although the school of thought for amateur racing seems to be buy cheep buy twice, as it'll get written off in a crash, so £200 carbon from china, CAAD10, etc could be the best, if not the most 'advanced'.
Trek Domane? Apparently comfortable and light - I haven't ridden one by the way - merely read the reviews but based on those it would be something I'd consider if I was looking for a new road bike.
best in what way ?
Well for life in a race and all that entails.
One thing that interests me is the carbon itself. Some brands use stuff like T80/800 whilst other companies use 40 or 60. From my limited experience of racing a few bikes, the difference is like 531 compared to 753!
Then there are things that even manufacturers couldn't even claim, like being able to use bigger gears to climb quicker because the drive is so much stiffer. When I test rode the TCR Advanced SL it felt like cheating.
thisisnotaspoon, Foils, Propels and the like don't seem to have taken off from what I can see? The higher weight and super stiffness isn't a trade off the working Joe racer is prepared to take.
BTW the Black weight doesn't include a seatpost or hanger, so some ISP frames are a tad lighter.....allegedly .
Giant TCR. Had two,they are hard to fault
One thing that interests me is the carbon itself. Some brands use stuff like T80/800 whilst other companies use 40 or 60. From my limited experience of racing a few bikes, the difference is like 531 compared to 753!
One thing we used to get asked in bike shops all the time was which was the "best" alumuminum - 6061, 7006, 7075 blah blah with most people (wrongly) assuming that the higher the number the better it is. It isn't, it's just the alloy and the percentages of elements like Mn, Zn, Fe, Cu etc that are in it.
I'd be willing to bet that geometry and the finishing components and even the tyre pressure will have more of a difference on ride feel than the difference between carbon 40 and 60.
Anything you see in the pro peleton would be fine. Me I'd go for A.
http://www.canyon.com/_en/roadbikes/bike.html?b=3121
My take on that was they had to prove it was stiffer than traditional aero frames like the Canyon aeroroad which use fuller aerofoil sections but weren't/aren't very stiff. Maybe the 2nd generation will be more user friendly?thisisnotaspoon, Foils, Propels and the like don't seem to have taken off from what I can see? The higher weight and super stiffness isn't a trade off the working Joe racer is prepared to take.
Probably, but that Giant promo video used some daft weights for seatposts, who buys a £1800 655g frame, then puts a 250g seatpost in it?BTW the Black weight doesn't include a seatpost or hanger, so some ISP frames are a tad lighter.....allegedly .
the consensus online seems to be that it's poor compared to their own CF SLX - which is a shame as there's one in my size in the outlet!Anything you see in the pro peleton would be fine. Me I'd go for A.
This, Condor Super Acciaio..
(I'm starting to think this could be my replacement for my Parlee)
[img][url= http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8241/8644255371_d524836c7d.jp g" target="_blank">
And here it is in action, courtesy of Ben..
[img][url= http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8265/8644265359_c593b9f1a0.jp g" target="_blank">
I don't get that - how does stiffness allow you to do that ? Is it to do with wheels rubbing on brakes or what ?being able to use bigger gears to climb quicker because the drive is so much stiffer
(I have a PX carbon that's supposedly quite flexy but I doubt a stiffer frame would get me up hills any better, or would it ?)
If the frame is flexing then that represents wasted force that should be going through the drivetrain surely?
I don't get that
A mix of efficiency and proprioception?
The bikes more efficient if it's stiffer so you get more power to the wheel, thus go faster for the same effort and use a higher gear.
You get used to a certain amount of flex in a bike, and you perceive that against your exertion, if that flex diapered then you'd pedal harder until the stiffer frame flexed as much and you'd think you were putting out the same effort. You're actually doing more so you'll be knackered quicker, but it'll feel like your going faster for the same effort.
I thought road biking was all about the engine?
Or indeed this, Wyndy Milla's Massive Attack. They sponsor UK Youth BTW and they are near Guilford... I went to see them this week, impressed.
[img][url= http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8260/8644279057_ed4426beda.jp g" target="_blank">
Got a percentage on offer for that ? My guess would be below 1 (esp at the modest output I can generate - Mr Hoy may disagree)The bikes more efficient if it's stiffer so you get more power to the wheel, thus go faster for the same effort and use a higher gear.
My laziness in mostly conscious rather than subliminal - I don't [u]think[/u] I could be tricked into trying harderYou get used to a certain amount of flex in a bike, and you perceive that against your exertion, if that flex diapered then you'd pedal harder until the stiffer frame flexed as much and you'd think you were putting out the same effort. You're actually doing more so you'll be knackered quicker, but it'll feel like your going faster for the same effort.
http://inrng.com/2011/02/what-do-the-pros-ride/
[img] 
[/img]
Gilbert on the canyon aluminium
For example Philippe Gilbert spent much of last year racing on a Canyon F8 Ultimate AL frame, an aluminium frame from the German company that is a long way from their top-of-the-range offering. He took both the Amstel Gold race with this. Look closely and you can spot the cable stops on the head tube, whereas the Canyon Ultimate CF has then on the downtube. This year that’s changed with Gilbert riding on a carbon frame, the new Canyon Aeroad CF.
if you want advanced i would actually look at steel frames as in absolute terms steel is probably pushed further in bikes than pretty much anyother material, Alu is a close second, but carbon use in most bikes isn't really stretching the material that much.
They don't sponsor ukyouth anymore. Cervelo do now. They have put their time behind mg maxi fuel with a good ladies team. Magnus Backstead got shelled from ukyouth but is with mg and has quite a bit of input into frames. I have ridden the team bike from last year(in above pic), very nice. Cervelo rs(ok it's not as racey) is a good poor surface ride, shame they discontinued it.
Regarding Canyon
the consensus online seems to be that it's poor compared to their own CF SLX - which is a shame as there's one in my size in the outlet!
I've got the Aeroad, my mate had the CF SLX (he destroyed it, and his hip in the lakes last year)
The CF SLX goes uphill very quickly indeed, but my Aeroad is just a stunning bike, downhill it's so quick, it scares me at times how fast you can corner on it, and on long days it just purrs along (i did 340km in a day last year and I was fresh as a daisy at the end of it). It's comfy but its not as stiff or light as the SLX, but i wouldn't change it.
for the record, Cervelo got done for nicking Canyons ideas. IMO you'd be mad to pay the quite considerable extra for a comparable Cervelo frame, rather than the SLX or Aeroad
When I was looking at road bikes I liked the looks of the Foils but the reviews I read all said it gives a harsh ride and one said only really suited for smooth roads.
The more I ride and see of them the more I'm convinced that the Spesh Tarmac is one of the best all-round carbon bikes ever. I've never experienced such razor sharp handling with comfort.
I'm currently lusting after a Canyon Ultimate Al with Campy Athena, stunning value, and more bike than I'd ever need.
Madone 7 series tops my list. Looks gorgeous, sub-700g frame, and more aero than the Supersix/R5ca etc.
I agree with mrmo - Reynolds 953 (and to a lesser extent 853) are hugely technical bits of steel and 953 in particular really pushes the envelope of what can be achieved (tube walls down to .3mm for eg).
Cheers
Danny B
...
I do rather like the Giant SL thingies, but you can't argue with the value of the Canyons. I reckon that's where I'll be looking for my next road bike in a couple of years
I used to race on aluminium bikes that weren't exactly top end, but I was always up there! Now race on a fairly expensive carbon bike, but in honesty I can't really compare the two in one being noticeable 'better' for racing on.
All this stuff with kit is pretty much the last thing to be concerned with. Lightweight wheels and decent tyres account for more IMO.
Unless budget isn't an issue, I wouldn't bother spending more than £2000 on a race bike these days..and at that it'll be very well specced.
Bias but pretty good tests
I agree with mrmo - Reynolds 953 (and to a lesser extent 853) are hugely technical bits of steel and 953 in particular really pushes the envelope of what can be achieved (tube walls down to .3mm for eg).
True, but you could carve a bike out of stone, it'd be a hugely impressive achievement, and would no doubt take a master stonemason and some very expensive chisels a lot of talent and effort. But it'd still be a bike made out of stone.
Bmc time machine
tinas, what i am trying to say is if you take a modern carbon frame, it isn't really pushing the material, it isn't cutting edge, it is doubtful the material will be the high grade carbonfibres etc. . There are a few frames pushing it, but most, not at all.
Take an alu frame, tube manipulation etc, far more pushing the material, but the material itself has not developed much over the last few years, consider the alloys and heat-treatments now to 10 years ago.
With steel, the use of alloys and manipulation is pushing the material far more. As for use in general, which other applications see steel pushed to the same level?
Really comes down to what you mean by "technically most advanced road frame", if the question is "what is the fastest road frame" or "what is the lightest road frame", then you should really look at the carbon frames around as one of them is undoubtedly the correct answer.
Interesting... what I read online suggested the "aero" features weren't particularly well thought out (no wind-tunnel testing, etc) which is why the SLX would be the better bet (lighter and stiffer as you say). Did you ride your mates CF SLX before he wrote it off? Do you think the Aeroad is comfier for long days in the saddle? I'm looking for a bike both for sportives/long days out and strava-runs (so the moon on a stick really) and to be honest I don't have the bottle to do 50 MPH+ downhill on the road so that capability might be lost on me! I also recall another thread where a Canyon rep allegedly said in an email that the CF [SLX] was right for 90% of their customers?The CF SLX goes uphill very quickly indeed, but my Aeroad is just a stunning bike, downhill it's so quick, it scares me at times how fast you can corner on it, and on long days it just purrs along (i did 340km in a day last year and I was fresh as a daisy at the end of it). It's comfy but its not as stiff or light as the SLX, but i wouldn't change it.
tinas, what i am trying to say is if you take a modern carbon frame, it isn't really pushing the material, it isn't cutting edge, it is doubtful the material will be the high grade carbonfibres etc. . [b]There are a few frames pushing it, but most, not at all.[/b]
You mean like steel frames...? Daft example. "This tiny subset of steel frames are the most advanced, because most carbon frames aren't as innovative".
Unless budget isn't an issue, I wouldn't bother spending more than £2000 on a race bike these days..and at that it'll be very well specced.
That can't be right surely? The guys that actually develop the frames will be looking for the best designs....won't they.
I heard second hand that Giant for example went for stiffness and compliance, whilst Cervelo went for aerodynamics and compliance.
I'm still a bit cynical about some brands. Nothing is said about where they come from or indeed what they're made from. And they seem to be doing us a great favour by selling us well specced bikes cheaply. Yet the few mass market brands that are probably in the best position to knock out cheap carbon are selling some of the most expensive race framesets i.e Trek and Giant.
This tiny subset of steel frames are the most advanced, because most carbon frames aren't as innovative".
no, the top end steel frames push steel more than the top end carbon frames push carbon. As i said pushing the material not the design.
A carbon aero frame may be the lightest, stiffest etc. but technically i believe that carbon frames still have a lot further to go than where we are now. I don't think you can push a steel frame much further.
[i][b]Does[/b][/i] anyone have a figure for the power loss suffered by a supposedly flexy frame like a PX carbon in comparison to, say, oldgit's favoured Giant ?
Yet the few mass market brands that are probably in the best position to knock out cheap carbon are selling some of the most expensive race framesets i.e Trek and Giant.
With their 700g wind tunnel tested frames and millions of pounds spent on R&D? Yes, it's a wonder they're more expensive than a significantly heavier 'aero' frame with no actual aero testing behind it!
I do sort of know what you mean, but why should a Madone be cheaper than any inferior frame? However you judge that metric.
Interesting... what I read online suggested the "aero" features weren't particularly well thought out (no wind-tunnel testing, etc) which is why the SLX would be the better bet (lighter and stiffer as you say). Did you ride your mates CF SLX before he wrote it off? Do you think the Aeroad is comfier for long days in the saddle? I'm looking for a bike both for sportives/long days out and strava-runs (so the moon on a stick really) and to be honest I don't have the bottle to do 50 MPH+ downhill on the road so that capability might be lost on me! I also recall another thread where a Canyon rep allegedly said in an email that the CF [SLX] was right for 90% of their customers?
I bought the aeroad because I wanted a bike I could clip aero bars on and do TTs as well as sportives, big audaxes etc. I rode my mates bike and it was very stiff, and quite unforgiving, the aeroad, IMO is much comfier. but, with the aeroad, you get deep wheels (i replaced the cosmics with 38mm all carbon clinchers) and they add weight, and on uphills, especially with a cross wind can be very draggy indeed. If you have no desire to use the bike for improving your TT time then maybe the SLX is the bike for you. but, their alu Di2 bike for 2k looks stunning as well...
Does anyone have a figure for the power loss suffered by a supposedly flexy frame like a PX carbon in comparison to, say, oldgit's favoured Giant ?
That won't exist. What I can tell you that I had a PX SL Pro, I raced it a whole season as well.
When I tried a similarly specced Giant the difference was huge. I won't slate the PX as it served me well. But on a regular training route there are three climbs that require the 39t ring, on the Giant I never dropped it out of the 53t. It also instantly made a difference in my race positions and ability to be an active member of the group.
Scott addict is coming back for 2014.
Average Jo racer wasn't getting the aero advantage of the foil and the cr1 isn't quite race ready...
Does anyone have a figure for the power loss suffered by a supposedly flexy frame like a PX carbon in comparison to, say, oldgit's favoured Giant ?
IME, the more someone's paid for a frame, the better it makes them go. Maybe it's because their wallet is lighter...
Cannondale synapse hi-mod ? Only slightly longer wheelbase than S6 but shorter than Domane - and the go to bike for cannondale riders in the classics where road conditions probably not that much different from ours. Higher HT allows you to be on the drops longer and more often. Well capable for racing and also super comfortable for longer days too. Think Paul's Cycles may have a SRAM red for £2k which is great value.
a lot of the discussion on here is useful but it's very fine differences I'd reckon, if you can't get the best out of a bike then it's all theory...
have you had a bike fit? if you are serious about laying out the cash, go to Adrian Timmis at Cadence Sport and find out what geometry you need, then discard all the ones that won't work for you
Just bought it...
Giant Defy Advanced SL
[img] 
[/img]
You did say 60 miles of [b]UK roads[/b] and it's been honed on the roads/cobbles of Paris-Roubaix. For closed courses on smooth roads, Giant Propel.
When I had a look around the Blanco team bus after the paris roubaix I noticed a few of the team had chosen the Defy.
Stop whining, the roads aren't that bad.
spoony, you talking to TiRed or cycling plus ?
Brant just sent some code up there.. It's morse for Rt & 58.
Stop whining, the roads aren't that bad.
You weren't on this morning's club run. Shocking roads in Surrey.
brant originally said "a mondo" and then some other stuff that, presumably, he shouldn't 😆