I'm currently ramping up my mileage in order to get into doing some brevets, and it's time for a new ride. I've got a couple of issues that I want to run by you folks here in the LD forum... they're addressing two different issues, so I'm going to separate the questions into different threads. Here's the first:

I've been eyeing some different bikes for riding centuries/brevets, but I'm torn on the issue of balancing weight/versatility/durability for a long distance bike. I refuse to sacrifice comfort, so an overly aggressive race geometry is out. And my theory is that high quality components will make the ride easier and smoother when you're riding long... so a 105-level group or better is in order.

The way I see it, I'm going to either go with a carbon bike or a steel bike. But I'm really not sure which way to go with this purchase. I like the light weight of the carbon, but am not completely sold on the durability of a CF frame. I like the idea of being able to use a rack if needed... but this isn't going to be my commuter, so a Bagman/Nelson combo will work well for me. Another hitch is that I want fenders and about 25 or 28 tires.

On the other hand, steel is familiar... dependable... versatile... and heavier. Steel frames are available with ample braze ons for anything you'd want to use for cargo. And unlike a CF frame, I can use P-clamps and hose clamps in a pinch without worrying about frame damage.

Some of the bikes that I've been looking at:

CF:
Trek Pilot 5.0
Specialized Roubaix Elite Triple

Steel:
Salsa Casseroll Triple
or a *gulp* Rivendell

So how about giving me your insights into the LD bike balance? What choices did you make and what effect does it have on your rides? What would you do differently?

My first road bike was a Specialized Allez, very twitchy and fast. Like you, I enjoy doing longer rides but didn't want a heavy bike with boring geometry. I also use my bike for commuting to work and need clearance for full fenders and wider tires. The Salsa Casseroll seemed ideal for what I was looking for, so I ordered one last week and hope to be riding it by this weekend. I can't say how great it is yet because I haven't ridden it, but definitely take a close look at one.

Go for comfort over weight savings (within reason). The more comfortable you are, the less time you will spend at controls, which equates to faster overall times. This is especially important at longer distances (600K+) because getting further down the road the first day means more sleep time. More comfort also reduces the chance of DNF due to hand or butt pain and reduces overall fatigue.

Weight doesn't really mean much in terms of performance - or comfort, really. Geometry, wheel type, tire type and tire pressure will all have bigger impact than weight on both of these aspects.

E.g. a semi-relaxed geometry will feel better in the long run, unless you are exceptionally fit, flexible and can handle an aggressive position. Sitting more upright will also slow you down due to increased drag.

Similarly, with wheels you probably want to go with a higher spoke count for greater comfort and robustness. Fewer spokes will be more aerodynamic, but will absorb less road shock; and unless you're riding on very tough roads should be OK.

As to tires, slightly wider tires (e.g. 25's) won't slow you down much. Lower pressure = more comfy = higher rolling resistance = worse performance.

As to steel vs CF, IMO steel is more robust but less blingy. ;) I went for steel, mostly because I beat the crap out of my bikes. If you can baby yours, CF should be fine.

I'd start with a budget; then figure out what fits. Bike weight shouldn't even be a consideration, unless you're lugging said bike up 5 flights of stairs twice a day.

I was a no-CF holdout. A friend bugged me about it, so I got the most compact tiny CF Italian frame I could find on eBay, set it up blingie and fell in love. I had nut problems and flipped the stem up, put on an SMP big slot saddle - and I could ride this thing forever. Wheels a bit punchy, so I'm changing them to 3x/open pro/32H standard road wheels. Borrowed my wife's DA 3x OP wheels and liked them better. More comfortable and better adhesion.

Now I don't like my steel bike and am going to sell it.

I think the key to my tiny CF bike is the very careful fit, and getting a bike with a bit taller head tube and slacker head angle. This is more like an older stage race design. 72.35 degrees. Because of the excellent fit and careful balance it's extremely well behaved and easy to ride. Part of that is from the very supple and effortless handling. It is absolutely perfectly responsive, but stable. No work at all to keep it doing exactly what I want. I immediately notice my older steel bike takes more work to turn and drive. But it's a delicate knife edge - sensitive to weight balance and everything else. I've ridden it tired and it takes care of me - just barely. I hit a rock on the way home today at about 35 on a hill, no problem (I should check that front tire). But it's an expert's ride, I'm sure.

I'm a finesse rider, very aware of road and conditions. And I wouldn't ride one of the really light CF bikes. Mine is a heavy one, clearly with extra carbon at the headtube and a heavier fork. Makes it rock solid. And I'm very careful not to drop or ding it!

I can't clamp stuff to it. It doesn't like much weight in a handlebar bag. But I put an epic super twinkie on today and it doesn't really mind that, so saddle bags work on it if strapped down. And I might make some fork mount carriers for "water bottles" - meaning my jetboil stove and a large water bottle full of goodies.

I ride the CF machine very hard over very rough stuff and complete confidence in it. Very strong, very powerful. But not against crashes. Isn't supposed to be! I'm not a klutz though. My wife is, she has a carbon bike, and she's very careful!

On the other hand, for utility and winter commuting I'm looking at (NO NO NO) steel!!! And (heaven forbid) 26" wheels. I know this will be SLOW. But it will work.

And so much seems to depend on mindset, philosophy, etc. I started on a tour of the Blue Ridge Parkway on a nice British touring bike, stopped and got a ride back to rig a rack on my racing bike after just a few days. Was a much easier ride with the performance bike. Certainly not for everyone.

I must say that tires are so much better these days. But I would still consider tubulars were I living in the saddle. They're very comfortable. I rode them for a year a bit ago, once again, and decided I just didn't want to be in the glue game. But they were supple and comfortable and overall wonderful. But modern wired ons are very very good. That's one place I would get the most supple I could. I use relatively inexpensive and somewhat harsher tires for my day rides, but if I'm doing a longer ride I put on expensive supple tires - makes a difference.

Have fun!!!

I went the Rivendell route and couldn't be happier. The geometry (romulus) is the perfect compromise IMO.

I often think about the weight issue being that MY bike, with fenders etc., weighs a ton. Are there any CF bikes with full fender clearance? I can just picture it now, Full CF bike complete with CF fenders, bars, stem, seatpost, wheelset, cranks....

Soma Smoothie ES.

schweeeet.

Tire size and fender clearance and hard points for racks are the weak points on CF bikes. I understand the go-fast-only-performance thing, but don't agree with it. No reason a high performance bike can't be designed to handle standard minimal utility gear! Annoying. My bike won't even take 25 mm tires, so I have to careful in tire choice. Makes it more sensitive to tire pressure.

A CF bike that works. That would be good. How about 72 x 72, sloping TT with a long HT, aluminum inserts in the CS & fork allowing rack mounting, AL steerer (cuz I'm scared of CF steerers) room for at least 28s with fenders. Long CS. Could still be light and would have that rather appealing CF ride. No reason this can't be done! Wouldn't that be nice? My bike is lovely, but it is certainly limiting. If the ride wasn't so dang great I wouldn't put up with it!

The Giant OCR line is designed as an all day bike. Have you looked at it?

I think that CF frames have gotten to the point that they are pretty reliable. And they are more comfortable. If it was me I would go with the carbon fiber and stay away from racks. But I would go with a cyclocross CF frame with a road triple crank on it such as a Specialized Tricross CF built up with a good road triple crank. This can allow for wider tires and fenders if necessary. Plus the frame is a little bit stronger than a road frame yet it also has good handling.

Either way, whether you go with steel or CF I would go with a cyclocross frame.

the casseroll is a nice looking rig. room for fenders. cushy fork. long reach brakes. rack attachment points.
we're debating selling my lemond (currently set up for my wife) and moving her to a casseroll, as she wants lights, rack, fenders - for longer rides and for using it as an everyday bike. i did a brevet series on the lemond and couldn't fit anything larger than 25s. i also had to use clip on fenders...


i suspect the engine will be more of a limiting factor than the bike.
if you are comfortable you will ride longer, and further. and probably faster too.


the weight of the frame is such a small % of the overall package...i'd get what is comfortable and can hold the gear / accessories you want.

if you ride in the southwest or high desert and do not worry about rain and slop - get the CF and go go go.

if you live most anywhere else and want to do ld rides in the PNW, NE or do PBP, LEL, BMB, etc. etc. you'll probably want fenders (at least in spring and fall... and definitely for winter).

for me:

long reach brakes (room for 28s with fenders and 32s without)
steel fork
ti frame (but i would have gone steel had i not worked out how to get the ti)
club racer geometry (a custom IF)
low riders on the fork for my lights and small front rack (for camping and odd gear)
fenders
schmidt dyno hub
brooks saddle
TA carmina double crank - 94 bcd so I get a low 'tread' and a wide range of rings (smallest i've used is a 30 and largest is a 50 - giving me options to tune my gearing for the terrain) (i dislike triples...)
phil bb
mavic wheels 32h, traditional spokes (for when the bike goes 'naked' and i don't need the dyno)
son hub front and campy rear on mavic OPs 32h when i rig for brevets / utility
saddle bag for gear


and a great investement was consulting with a fitter before i odered the frame, and having a pro fit done after. during the pro fit i also upgraded my shoes and had custom insoles made which removed a wobble in my knee...

i think a cross frame would make a great brevet bike. i have a cross check that i ride fixed and have done centuries on it. i'm not as comfortable as on my if, and the geometry is different - but if you find something that fits... go for it.

While people ride brevets on virtually any type of bike, a racing bike is really not the best choice - especially for longer events. Unless you are very lightweight, 23mm tires have to be inflated to high pressure, resulting in a much harsher ride, increased hand numbness, and greater fatigue. After a couple hundred miles in the saddle, I'm sure glad to have 30 mm tires when I come to some rough chip seal.

A cyclocross bike makes a pretty good randonneuring bike. Although the geometry likely doesn't lend itself well to using a front bag, the bike will accommodate wide tires and should certainly be capable of holding up against high mileage. Using V-brakes or cantis will also make fender installation easier, if desired.

...or sheldon brown fender brake nuts -RIP sheldon, you rocked! available thru QBP - to make fender install and removal much easier with calipers.

One thing I liked about going Soma was I had the choices of going with steel or carbon IRD forks (for long reach brakes there's not much available) with 3 trail options. some (Jan Heine?) say go with more trail for stability, load handling up front and comfort.

There aren't a lot of non-custom steel frames or framesets for LR brakes available if you want to buy new, there just aren't. The Soma Smoothie ES has been and continues to be an excellent ride.

Go for comfort over weight savings (within reason). The more comfortable you are, the less time you will spend at controls, which equates to faster overall times. This is especially important at longer distances (600K+) because getting further down the road the first day means more sleep time. More comfort also reduces the chance of DNF due to hand or butt pain and reduces overall fatigue.

All good arguments for riding a 'bent. :rolleyes: I can go as far and as hard as I want on my RANS F5, and the only part of me that gets sore or tired is my legs. On the RM1200 this year, almost every df rider I saw after day 1 was spending time standing on the pedals to get weight off the "saddle area" and/or shaking out their hands to get feeling back, not to mention lingering at controls while I was already down the road. Seems like I recover qucker too: I'd ridden a mountainous 200k the weekend before the RM and did a 300k the weekend after, and my only problem the whole time was a sore left achilles from a bike setup error on my part. And I finished solidly "mid-pack" on all 3 rides - right where I used to be on my df.

SP
RUSA #3481

ps - speaking of RUSA, the first picture in the first photo album at RUSA.ORG is yours truly on the OR Randonneurs "Covered Bridges" 400k this spring.

If it works for you, it works for you. Personally, I would not feel safe riding one, as visibility (both ways) is far less on a recumbent. Certainly better than not riding though.

All good arguments for riding a 'bent. :rolleyes: I can go as far and as hard as I want on my RANS F5, and the only part of me that gets sore or tired is my legs. On the RM1200 this year, almost every df rider I saw after day 1 was spending time standing on the pedals to get weight off the "saddle area" and/or shaking out their hands to get feeling back, not to mention lingering at controls while I was already down the road. Seems like I recover qucker too: I'd ridden a mountainous 200k the weekend before the RM and did a 300k the weekend after, and my only problem the whole time was a sore left achilles from a bike setup error on my part. And I finished solidly "mid-pack" on all 3 rides - right where I used to be on my df.

SP
RUSA #3481

ps - speaking of RUSA, the first picture in the first photo album at RUSA.ORG is yours truly on the OR Randonneurs "Covered Bridges" 400k this spring.

Of your stated choices, I would go with the Rivendell if I was in that situation. Nothing is more satisfying in the long run than having a beautiful, elegant steel frame under you that looks like a road bicycle should look. Even if it's just to be a contrarian and avoid the me-too racer stuff, it's worth it. For comfortable long distance type of riding, a bit of extra weight is not going to matter one iota. You can still be happily riding such a bike for a lifetime while everyone else frets about theirs being outdated every model year. I love steel frames, but only the traditional kind. I don't care for sloping top tubes or anything that looks mountain-bikish for the road. You don't have to follow the current Rivendell advice about having the handlebars higher than the saddle. But with a bike like that, you can easily have them saddle level or near saddle level, and you can correspondingly have your saddle back a bit, without giving anything up in the bike's handling. Such a setup is perfect for long distance riding that isn't racing.

Some of the other steel sport touring and touring-like bikes on the market these days are kind of ugly, even if they are very functional.

Personally, I would not feel safe riding one, as visibility (both ways) is far less on a recumbent.

Not to be contrary, but that doesn't match my experience at all. Are your comments based on first-hand experience? I've had no trouble whatsoever seeing or being seen, probably because I'm right at eye level with drivers in normal passenger cars.

SP

I went the Specialized Tri-Cross S-works route.

Plenty of room for wide tires and fenders with front and rear mounting points.

A long headtube that lets me get the handlebars up and a relatively low Bottom Bracket.

The only drawback is that it comes with a carbon fiber steerer.

I bought it as a frameset and replaced the carbon seatpost with a Thomson.

My 1983 Trek 720 weighs 23.5 lbs (Bike,Pedals) and 35 to 37 lbs fully loaded versus the Specialized at 16.5 lbs and 27 - 29 lbs fully loaded (Carradice Barley, lights, 2 full H2O bottles)

Not to be contrary, but that doesn't match my experience at all. Are your comments based on first-hand experience? I've had no trouble whatsoever seeing or being seen, probably because I'm right at eye level with drivers in normal passenger cars.

SP

Simple physics. My head (and therefore eyes) is higher. I can see over more things, and can see things farther away. Also, my head is farther forward relative to my front wheel - meaning I don't have to stick out as far to see past things.

Don't get me wrong - there are definitely some advantages to riding recumbents, but there are trade-offs. We each need to make the decisions for ourselves. I wouldn't feel as comfortable with the visibility on one. Then again, I wear glasses because I can't stand the idea of sticking contact lenses in my eyes. Different strokes for different folks.

Simple physics. My head (and therefore eyes) is higher. I can see over more things, and can see things farther away. Also, my head is farther forward relative to my front wheel - meaning I don't have to stick out as far to see past things.

None of which have proven to be issues for me. Just wanted to make sure that all sides are heard here. As you've said, "different strokes...".

SP

The vast majority of manufacturers warrant their carbon frames forever, and from what I've heard, replacements are very rare - certainly more rare than steel or al frames.

And I prefer the carbon ride over steel by a large margin.

However, many carbon bikes and forks make it hard to mount fenders and run slightly wider tires, both of which you may want to do.

The vast majority of manufacturers warrant their carbon frames forever, and from what I've heard, replacements are very rare - certainly more rare than steel or al frames.
A warranty doesn't help me if my frame snaps at mile 75, in the middle of nowhere. :D

I haven't seen any factual data or statistics to prove or disprove the claim that carbon is not (generally) as robust as metal. However, IMO there are a couple of minor problems with using carbon for unsupported 100+ mile rides:

1) As mentioned, manufacturers aren't making CF bikes that can handle wide tires and fenders
2) They also don't have rack mounts
3) Many have monostays, so you couldn't even add p-clamps for rack mounts
4) You'd have to be very careful adding a seatpost rack or p-clamps, since you could crack the CF if you apply too much torque
5) At least some CF bikes (higher-end) do not have standard seatposts, and couldn't take a seatpost rack anyway
6) Carbon may or may not fail more often than metal, but apparently it fails faster; ergo, you have more time to notice cracks with metal frames

If you ride supported events and can frequently inspect your frame, I think you'd be fine with CF for ultras. For unsupported 200+ mile rides, I'm not sure carbon is your best choice.

Hydrated, In the same genre as the Sonoma Smoothie and the Salsa Casseroll is the Gunnar Sport which is what I use and recommend you check out.

I would think that the experience of racers, who put a good deal more stress and more accidents into bikes than most of us, would be useful. On road races I see many many carbon frames. They dominate. On TV, I've seen one carbon frame break. I've never seen any break in person. I've seen many broken steel frames, only a very few catastrophic, and have detected cracks in more aluminum frames than I'd like to have seen.

I would think the tire/put things on it problems are the ones that should give pause, rather than the nature of carbon.

I would think the tire/put things on it problems are the ones that should give pause, rather than the nature of carbon.

That's the big thing that makes me hesitate about using a carbon frame... all of those funky shaped tubes and joints make me nervous about strapping anything onto a CF frame. For example, how much weight is safe to hang off of the saddle/seatpost? Is my Bagman/Nelson going to crack the seat tube or otherwise damage the frame?

The simplicity of steel has it's own allure. Straight tubes of uniform diameter... simple and understandable joints.

I'm still undecided... that CF stuff is soooo light... soooo tempting.

The Giant OCR line is designed as an all day bike. Have you looked at it?

+ 0.75

I have an OCR2, and have done 200+ mile rides on it. However I needed to do some tweaking to it. Brooks saddle (better comfort), Velocity wheels (not needed, but the OEM wheels showed some hairline cracks after 3000 miles) , got rid of the adjustable stem (stock stem required constant tightening and adjustment).

This setup is not light, but not to heavy, definitely comfortable.
I plan on riding a Super Randoneur series on it next year...

I'm still undecided... that CF stuff is soooo light... soooo tempting.



sort of.
what saddle will you be using?
wheels?
cargo carrying stuff?

the actual frame is such a small percentage of the total package... especially when you throw on the average club rider. (and the over than average, like myself...)

i rode a brevet series on a carbon / steel lemond. its a great bike - i bought it at the same time i bough a trek 520 touring rig. i thought i'd switch off and ride the trek for brevets and such, and the lemond for fair weather sojourns, and nice day commutes to work.

i ended up liking both - but wanted something in between - something that really speaks to the way i ride.

CF is nice. i'm sure a great touring / club racer could be built from it (see the last issue of BQ for a custom carbon rando frame)

but the reality is that the way i ride, and what i want a bike to do just doesn't jive with the current offerings in CF.

YMMV.

good luck - but don't get sucked into the weight debate. fill up some waterbottles on that CF frame and then empty them - did you really notice the difference?

buy / build a bike that will suit your riding style.

I'm currently ramping up my mileage in order to get into doing some brevets, and it's time for a new ride. I've got a couple of issues that I want to run by you folks here in the LD forum... they're addressing two different issues, so I'm going to separate the questions into different threads. Here's the first:

I've been eyeing some different bikes for riding centuries/brevets, but I'm torn on the issue of balancing weight/versatility/durability for a long distance bike. I refuse to sacrifice comfort, so an overly aggressive race geometry is out. And my theory is that high quality components will make the ride easier and smoother when you're riding long... so a 105-level group or better is in order.

The way I see it, I'm going to either go with a carbon bike or a steel bike. But I'm really not sure which way to go with this purchase. I like the light weight of the carbon, but am not completely sold on the durability of a CF frame. I like the idea of being able to use a rack if needed... but this isn't going to be my commuter, so a Bagman/Nelson combo will work well for me. Another hitch is that I want fenders and about 25 or 28 tires.

On the other hand, steel is familiar... dependable... versatile... and heavier. Steel frames are available with ample braze ons for anything you'd want to use for cargo. And unlike a CF frame, I can use P-clamps and hose clamps in a pinch without worrying about frame damage.

Some of the bikes that I've been looking at:

CF:
Trek Pilot 5.0
Specialized Roubaix Elite Triple

Steel:
Salsa Casseroll Triple
or a *gulp* Rivendell

So how about giving me your insights into the LD bike balance? What choices did you make and what effect does it have on your rides? What would you do differently?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Hello Hydrated,

I faced a similar dilemma a while back and ultimately went with an Atlantis by Rivendell (*gulp* indeed!). Here's how I decided: I used to be a climbing guide and I quickly learned that I could easily carry a day's worth of gear in an expedition pack, but you'll never carry an expedition in a day pack. The Atlantis *may* be overkill for most road riding, but it opens up the entire universe of cycling (okay, maybe not track, but that's what the fixie is for).

I've found that on sealed roads I can easily keep with most of my friends on those fancy CF bikes; on dirt and trails, I can cover the ground as well as my friends on their MTBs--unless it's pretty technical single track. I do change out tires to meet the anticipated demands of the planned ride, and it's easy enough to change out the freewheel (yup, freewheel) if I'm interested in, say, just doing a *fast* road-only ride. On very long rides (where I live the shortest paved loop out my door is about 87 miles), I seem to be more comfortable than the folks on their racing-style bikes...

As far as the durability issue goes, you can ride a very bent and battered steel frame even though it may not be great fun. I've seen to many fractured CF frames to trust them on long rides... very rough roads happen, accidents happen, and, of course, I travel without a cell phone so there's rarely a good bail-out.

Good luck with your decision!

I think the bike you want is called the Cyfac RandoNERV. Alu front triangle, CF fork and rear triangle. Designed to bolt-on all the usual accessories. I ride a steel Marinoni and a Cyfac Nerv aluminum bike, and the Cyfac is way more comfy for long rides and dampening.

You get access in US to RandoNERV's through veloeuropa.com

Enjoy your cake and eat it too.

I went the Specialized Tri-Cross S-works route.

Plenty of room for wide tires and fenders with front and rear mounting points.

A long headtube that lets me get the handlebars up and a relatively low Bottom Bracket.

The only drawback is that it comes with a carbon fiber steerer.

I bought it as a frameset and replaced the carbon seatpost with a Thomson.

My 1983 Trek 720 weighs 23.5 lbs (Bike,Pedals) and 35 to 37 lbs fully loaded versus the Specialized at 16.5 lbs and 27 - 29 lbs fully loaded (Carradice Barley, lights, 2 full H2O bottles)


How do you like your S-Works TriCross? How does it compare in weight and handling to a CF roadbike? Also, did you ride the CF/Alu version before deciding on the S-Works?

I've been thinking about this topic more and more after a recent brevet where I saw a lot of CF roadbikes just killing the clock. This bike might be what the doctor ordered!

The Roubaix is nice, but you can put fenders on it unless you use p-clamps, but it's carbon so thats a no no I hear. The Trek is nice because it can fit fenders, but only with 23c tires. So there goes your comfort factor. Remember, steel isn't always heavy, and carbon isn't always light.

How much difference does 10 extra pounds of bike make in terms of sustainable top end over a couple hundred miles?

...from what I've heard, replacements are very rare - certainly more rare than steel or al frames.




That's some claim! What's the basis?

How much difference does 10 extra pounds of bike make in terms of sustainable top end over a couple hundred miles?

For who?

You can estimate the effect of weight on speed on the Kreuzotter web site. You can tell us.

I suspect it will not be much unless speeds are very high.

For who?

You can estimate the effect of weight on speed on the Kreuzotter web site. You can tell us.

I suspect it will not be much unless speeds are very high.

analytical cycling (google it) is also a great spot to test this out.


but to the prior quote - a 10 pound difference in the bike? how? leave off the fenders, bags, waterbottles, etc?

are we really seeing that much difference in a steel frame to a carbon frame?

Well I'll spare you all the hard data, but this is what I got from the analytical cycling website. Wind resistance is king in terms of watts. And I suppose this is what I was really trying to figure out all along. My sustainable top speed will stay the same because of my sustainable power output stays the same. This is providing my fitness level doesn't change.

The lower weight bike did equate to less power usage which increased the sustainable top speed. What made the most difference however was frontal area and wind resistance. What does this mean? Goodbye huge handlebar bag.

Sorry to hijack OP.

BTW, Thanks for the link Bmike. That website is really excellent.

Well I'll spare you all the hard data, but this is what I got from the analytical cycling website. Wind resistance is king in terms of watts. And I suppose this is what I was really trying to figure out all along. My sustainable top speed will stay the same because of my sustainable power output stays the same. This is providing my fitness level doesn't change.

The lower weight bike did equate to less power usage which increased the sustainable top speed. What made the most difference however was frontal area and wind resistance. What does this mean? Goodbye huge handlebar bag.

Sorry to hijack OP.

is your handlebar bag to blame? does it really add more to your frontal area?
i think bicycle quarterly did wind tunnel tests on this... seems a handlebar bag needs to fit into the width of the handlebars, which are typically the width of one's shoulders.

jan heine seems to ride far / fast / and for long distances on an old french steel bike, with a large handlebar bag.

but... ymmv.

here's how i would rank priorities:

engine
engine weight
comfort (this includes warmth, position, and wet - fenders, etc.)
durability
function
component / frame / etc. weight.


i struggle with #1 and #2 (probably will forever)
i feel i've got #3, #4, and #5 dialed in as a balance for how i like to ride.
for me, the easy part and the part that i've worked on while building my fitness has been all the little things in 3-4-5 that can make or break a long event.
now, as the engine improves, i'll have that experience and those choices to strengthen #1 and #2 - as ld events can switch from being a fitness problem to a mental problem - so i know i am on gear that works in the rain, in the dark, etc... which lets me focus on getting to the next control, town, checkpoint, etc.

Maybe the bar bag isn't to blame. Maybe it's something else...

I feel like I have all of these aspects covered pretty well. The thing that gets me is, I took the drivetrain (cranks, wheels, rear cog, shifters, etc.) off of my previous road bike. I could spin that bike in the big ring, small cog all day long. The bike I put that gear on, I'm lucky to use the middle ring small cog. What gives?

Tire size and fender clearance and hard points for racks are the weak points on CF bikes. I understand the go-fast-only-performance thing, but don't agree with it. No reason a high performance bike can't be designed to handle standard minimal utility gear! Annoying. My bike won't even take 25 mm tires, so I have to careful in tire choice. Makes it more sensitive to tire pressure.

A CF bike that works. That would be good. How about 72 x 72, sloping TT with a long HT, aluminum inserts in the CS & fork allowing rack mounting, AL steerer (cuz I'm scared of CF steerers) room for at least 28s with fenders. Long CS. Could still be light and would have that rather appealing CF ride. No reason this can't be done! Wouldn't that be nice? My bike is lovely, but it is certainly limiting. If the ride wasn't so dang great I wouldn't put up with it!

It's too bad that all the focus on CF bikes is go fast. It's possible to do very cool things with laminate constructions, making it stiff in the directions it needs to be but springy where you want it to be. You can add material where youneed it for strength, you can not have it where you don't, and you can mix and match materials, so you can have metal where you want to have tubes that are more crush resistant.

"How do you like your S-Works TriCross? How does it compare in weight and handling to a CF roadbike? Also, did you ride the CF/Alu version before deciding on the S-Works?

I've been thinking about this topic more and more after a recent brevet where I saw a lot of CF roadbikes just killing the clock. This bike might be what the doctor ordered! " - 2Wheelie

I really do like the S-Works - I also have a Lemond Zurich and I can say that the handling is very similar, but with the Zertz and longer wheelbase I notice a big difference on Chipseal etc. However it is much more responsive than my Trek 720. I was looking for a dedicated Brevet Bike and after seeing so many road geometry Specialized and Giants being used I got interested in the S-Works. What is nice is that the S-Works has a very high headtube and the bb drop is actually greater than my Lemond so the Geometry really works for distances.

I've been thinking about this topic more and more after a recent brevet where I saw a lot of CF roadbikes just killing the clock. This bike might be what the doctor ordered!



Was it really the bike, or the engine?

TriCross is an interesting looking machine though...

Well, let's say you have two bikes. A CF race bike with a few extra things for the Brevet, plus water that weighs in at 20 lbs. Then, a steel brevet bike with a little more in the way of comfort that weighs in at 30 lbs. Now let's say your climbing tempo is 250 watts, and like me you weigh 155 lbs (of course you can play with the numbers yourself).

According to Kruezzor (http://www.kreuzotter.de/english/espeed.htm), the light bike has you spinning up a 5% grade at 11.2 mph and the heavy at 10.7. So over an hour, you'd be about 2 and a half minutes behind after a 3,500 foot climb.

Not very much. Also notice that this is with a somewhat light rider to start with so a 10 lb difference is a larger difference than for someone who weighs closer to 200 or 250 lbs.

You would think the difference would be greater for a 10% slope, but in fact it's only 6.6 mph for the light bike and 6.3 mph for the heavy.

So really, I'll take my "heavy", reliable, comfortable bike any day.

I've been playing with the figures some more and well??? I'm not going to argue with physics, it's absolute. I however just don't understand.

I really want to believe that a lighter bike will equate to less effort over the total distance. It might not make a huge time or speed difference directly, but indirectly if you work less you could potentially do more work for longer. Is this even close to being reasonable?

Also, if a light weight/aero bike has minimal effect on rider output, then why do pro teams spend millions of dollars in R&D on these lightweight/aero bikes?

As a rider of both a Tank (1983 Trek720) and a Lighter weight S-Works, alot depends on your style and overall approach to long distances.

Note that my S-Works is not in the same league as a pure CF road racing bike with no fenders and a small seatpack. The S-works has rack bosses, is drilled for fenders, accomodates 32mm and larger tires and has a longer wheelbase. When I built it up I recognized I am a packrat but I could refine what I carry so the weight savings is based on the total approach - but I still carry tools, 3 spare tubes a spare tire etc. Only now I use a carradice Barley vs a Cadet. I went this route because I believe my biggest opportunities were in climbing and this is where a 6 to 10 lb savings would be most effective.
Being able to compare the two bikes I definitely did not compromise on comfort or functionality.

Also, if a light weight/aero bike has minimal effect on rider output, then why do pro teams spend millions of dollars in R&D on these lightweight/aero bikes?

They don't. It's the bike manufacturers that are spending the money. Then they spend more to pay a pro team to ride their bikes. When Postal/Discovery was developing a time trial bike for LA that was not their money they were spending, it was Trek's. And then they didn't even use it. Although it was more aero the position did not allow Lance to output as much power.

You could extrapolate that the bike companies are spending millions making bikes more lightweight in the off chance that their sponsored teams will win more often. They would have more success if they simply sponsored better racers but it's hard to predict which ones are both more likely to win and not get disqualified. They have to infer that all the R&D is meaningful and race winning to justify the prices they charge for their consumer bikes.

Ah, for the good ole days when the bikes racers rode were custom built by some master builder and only the bike sponsor's name went on the top tube. And we, the consumer, knew that. But we bought a PX-10 anyway and loved it because it looked just like our hero's bike. And for all practical purposes, it wasn't that different.

Also, if a light weight/aero bike has minimal effect on rider output, then why do pro teams spend millions of dollars in R&D on these lightweight/aero bikes?


Are the teams spending the $$, or the companies sponsoring them?
Also - are you racing a brevet and wanting to shave seconds off your times... or are we talking about minutes / half hour / hours? Would you be comfortable in a skinsuit, on aerobars, with a heavy pointy helmet drinking from a hydration bladder and trying not to move out of your ideal position for 600k?



Mentally a light bike and hi-tech go fast gear might make you faster and feel like you can finish, or a reliable steed that works and works and works. And there is no reason that for each individual what works is a unique blend of any of these variables.

The goal of many rando riders is to 'finish the ride'. Some people ride for time and personal bests... some people enjoy the day out in the scenery on their bike, while moving effectively from control to control.

Some folks can drop $$$ on an uber lightweight machine and see a real benefit.
Others (myself included) could drop weight and improve the engine see a larger benefit.

I think a great place to start saving weight is the gear that is carried. Is it suitable to the task at hand? Does it work in a variety of situations? Are you comfortable with the durability / function /weight trade offs? etc. etc.

I'm currently ramping up my mileage in order to get into doing some brevets, and it's time for a new ride. [...]

On the other hand, steel is familiar... dependable... versatile... and heavier. Steel frames are available with ample braze ons for anything you'd want to use for cargo. And unlike a CF frame, I can use P-clamps and hose clamps in a pinch without worrying about frame damage. [...]
Always voted for steel (made to my size)

Additional pluses:

More comfortable (this is being debated by a minority for some specialized (for comfort) carbon frames, don't know the truth of these arguments)

Les dangerous (my insurance expert advised me recently of very serious injuries he now encounters with terrible breakages of carbon front parts entering your legs or body like spikes, the guy prefers steel over aluminum and aluminum over carbon fiber for the damage factor of post-accident traumas)

Easier to customize (weld all sorts of multiple attachments (like: I can fix my pump on three different locations and really use all three of them depending on bike configuration)

You can change its color and make yourself a new bike anytime you want (like every 4th year for PBP)

Of course, I realise this is highly debated. Personally, my racing bike is a customized Gemini bicycle made in 1974 with the lightest possible columbus steel tubes for the size I use. I plan to make it younger with some serious changes, but if I were to get a new racing bike today (what for ?), I would probably go for a carbon bike, of the comfortable sort it this really exists

HTH

The goal of many rando riders is to 'finish the ride'. Some people ride for time and personal bests... some people enjoy the day out in the scenery on their bike, while moving effectively from control to control.

Some folks can drop $$$ on an uber lightweight machine and see a real benefit.
Others (myself included) could drop weight and improve the engine see a larger benefit.


Both of these apply to me. Sure, I'd probably climb faster on a bike that's 10 pounds lighter. It's also cheaper for me to lose 10 pounds before I start dropping weight from my bike. I don't mind being the big slow guy. I'm not racing anyone, and I'm having fun.

It always interests me to see the different generalizations that people become comfortable with. For example:

1) Steel bikes are heavy and carbon bikes are light.
Even a "heavy" steel frame isn't typically more than an extra pound (maybe 1.5 pounds)compared to a similar carbon frame. Yet people throw around numbers assuming that most carbon bikes are 10 pounds lighter than steel. In reality, a quite light steel bike can be created by using the same higher end components found on the lighter carbon bikes. It would not be difficult to build a 17 pound steel bike if you were inclined to do so.

2) Steel bikes are comfortable and carbon bikes are uncomfortable.
There is so much more at play for each individual regarding comfort. Saddles, wheel lacing patterns, head and seat tube angles, the list goes on.

3) The only reason to buy a new bike (be it carbon or steel, or whatever) is to improve performance. Some times, it's okay to say "I wanted it, so I bought it".

Anyway, not intended to poke at anyone, just saying it's interesting.