Cyclocross Racing - BMC vs Tricross vs Colnago (for immediate order)

I'm about to pull the trigger and agree to doing the Fall Cyclocross season with my buddy.

So I have to get a bike, and I have to get it fast. I'm buying/ordering something tomorrow, racing starts next weekend (for me... the season has already started here).

Choices:

2009 BMC CX02 swiss white camo, with Rival and Aksiums. $1895

2009 Tricross Expert (Rival and Roval wheels): $2000

2008 Colnago World Cup CX w/ 105 and Aksiums: $1499 from JensonUSA


The Tricross.... I had a Tricross sport, and I was less than thrilled by the fork, hated the brakes, and despised the components. I know the components and wheels are better on the expert... but how much better compared to the aksiums? And the fork and brakes? Anyone have racing experience w/ these?

The Colnago is only available mail order, and only in a 58... and I'm thinking I should go one size down from my road bike for CX racing.

I'm leaning towards the BMC... it seems to be the most purpose built bike, being spec'd by Cadence specifically for CX racing w/ good tires and really good tight cantis. I forget which cantis, but the overall build had a quality that goes beyond mere component selection... it goes to just plain top quality wrenching.


So... thoughts?

Whether you go a size down or not depends on the specific measurments of the bike. I'd size it mor eor less like your road bike, but a 58 may have a 60cm or so ETT for some brands, so look closely at the numbers.

I'm thinking I should go one size down from my road bike for CX racing.Why?

Why?

So I don't smack the jewels. Or at least not as much.

Because a smaller frame can be flung around a little easier on portages.

And because a smaller frame can be fit exactly the same as a larger one, via stem and seat setback.

The BMC has a triangular TT with the pointed side down, so it will dig into your shoulder during carrying. If there is a worse design I can't think of it. This would be a deal killer for me.

So I don't smack the jewels. Or at least not as much.

Because a smaller frame can be flung around a little easier on portages.

And because a smaller frame can be fit exactly the same as a larger one, via stem and seat setback.If standover clearance and weight shaving were such important issues in cross bike design, you'd see all kinds of mtb-like compact geometries out there. If anything, it's just the opposite, with cross frames tending toward more horizontal top tubes, because a larger triangle is actually easier to portage, especially while shouldering.

The third argument isn't even a reason, it's an excuse. And even so, there are limits to how many stem spacers are recommended to use, especially on a full carbon fork.

You might as well get a frame that fits.

But don't take my word for it:
http://cyclocrossworld.com/Tech.cfm?Action=Edit&MenuKey=3&theKey=43

If standover clearance and weight shaving were such important issues in cross bike design, you'd see all kinds of mtb-like compact geometries out there. If anything, it's just the opposite, with cross frames tending toward more horizontal top tubes, because a larger triangle is actually easier to portage, especially while shouldering.

The third argument isn't even a reason, it's an excuse. And even so, there are limits to how many stem spacers are recommended to use, especially on a full carbon fork.

You might as well get a frame that fits.

But don't take my word for it:
http://cyclocrossworld.com/Tech.cfm?Action=Edit&MenuKey=3&theKey=43

Thanks for the link. This is why I'm asking these things, and stating my assumptions.

Both the Tricross and the BMC would be sized by local dealers w/ race support, so I would trust their judgement on size. The colnago is mail order, and the decision would have to come from the geometry chart.


Question: How long are the portages? I hadn't really expected them to be longer than a staircase, so I didn't expect to actually rest it on the shoulder. What should i really expect for such things?

Question: How long are the portages? I hadn't really expected them to be longer than a staircase, so I didn't expect to actually rest it on the shoulder. What should i really expect for such things?http://www.cyclingnews.com/cross.php?id=/photos/2008/sep08/radracinggp08/2008_RadRacingMen_03
OK, that's an extreme example.

Get the BMC since that's the one you want. Take a close look at the numbers though and don't buy an undersized frame ... go with something that'll fit you properly.

As for hitting the family jewels, to be perfectly honest you'll very rarely find yourself straddling the top tube Fred Flintstone-ing it along the course, and even if you do your junk will be stuffed up in your shorts anyway and not just dangling there.

OK, utter and complete change of direction here. Sometimes something rare and special comes along and you just have to let go of all your old ideas about what you're doing.

2008 Blue CXC (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&item=270277569481)

LETS GO RACING!

Big Picture (http://www.rideblue.com/images/2100x1200_cxc_profile.jpg)

Nice buy. I love those Blues. Everyone I know thinks they're hideously ugly, but I think they're just ugly. I'd race one.

RE: TT on the BMC.
Yeah, it has the more narrow end down, but it is rounded, not pointy. I do have a little bruise from shouldering last week, but nothing crazy.

RE: 'smacking the jewels'
What scenario would have you putting your testicles over your top tube? Especially during a race. None that I can think of. Get the right sized bike, as evidenced by the CXMagazine link.

The blue is a nice bike, I'm sure you'll enjoy it.

Spend some time practicing getting on and off the bike while it's moving.