Hybrid Bicycles - cannondale quick vs. bianchi cameleonte

I have been riding a Trek fx7300 for three years. After many ungrades the Trek is really showing signs of wear. I finally decided to upgrade and get a new bike.

I have decided to get another hybrid because I ride to commute, exercise and stress relief. I also decided that I wanted a hybrid that was a little more road bike. I do not want a road bike because the gravel, sand and potholes will destroy it.

I am tossed up between cannondale quick vs. bianchi camelteonte. I willing to spend $1,000 so will likely be looking at the quick 1 or 2. Although I have been tempted by the quick carbon. Any recommendations between these two bikes or another bike that I have not considered.

The Quick 1 & 2 are road-biased, whereas the Quick CX is more of a dual-sport kind of bike. If you're regularly riding rough dirt roads or hitting actual MTB trails then the Quick CX (and similar bikes, perhaps 29er MTBs) are what you want. If you just need to cross a mile or two of gravel to get to the pavement, any of these will work.

The Quick Carbon is *definitely* a flatbar road bike. It will be no more durable than any road bike on gravel. That's a lot more than your $1,000 budget anyway. :)


My thoroughly obvious vote is for the Quick CX 1, but it's also a good bit more than your budget. You can read my full comments on it in the thread in this forum regarding the Quick CX Ultra, which has been renamed in 2011+ as the Quick CX 1.

I am not as easily sold on the Quick CX 2.. the components and weight on it are comparable to many dual-sport & hardtail 29ers. You can always put a cyclocross or hybrid tire on a 29er to go faster on pavement and retain offroad ability, but you'll never fit a 2.2" knobby on any hybrid that I've seen.

my Quick 3 is a firecracker! the quick 2 i believe is the same frame, better components. I don't know a lot about the bianchi, except some models are more road, some more off-road...

I am presently riding a Trek and it was great starter bike (paid $500). However, the more I ride the more I need speed so these are my two complaints (1) weight, (2) components are marginal. I have made many upgrades to increase speed, (1) changed rims, (2) changed tires to 700 x 23, (3) changed seat post, (4) changed fork and I removed all unnecessary parts (kick stand, reflectors and etc). I am tired of changing components, not that knowledgable about components and just want to buy a complete bike that fits my needs. After reading the responses, I am leaning toward the Cannondale Quick. I really want a hybrid that is more road bike. 80% of my riding is on paved road. The remaining 20% are potholes, broken pavement and dirt/gravel to avoid the aforementioned potholes and broken pavement.

I am not in a rush to buy but want a new bike by the spring so I have to shop around for the right price. I roade the quick 4 and loved it. But I want to really get a cike where I change nothing so the Quick 2 and Quick 1 are my goals. Are the differences between the Quick 1 and Quick 2 worth the money differentia;?

I really appreciate all of the responses.

You're truly talking about the Quick 1 & 2, and not the Quick CX 1 & 2?

The Quick 1 & 2 are flatbar road bikes. They have road drivetrain, road wheels and though they are 32mm, road tires. I would not suggest any dirt or potholes as originally equipped. Seriously, you could install drop bars (and shifters, and brake levers) and you have a road bike.

The Quick CX models are hybrids / dual-sport bikes. They have MTB drivetrain, hybrid/29er wheels and dual-sport tires. (Shoulder knobs, smoother center tread). They also have front suspension, except for the Quick CX 4. And they can easily handle dirt roads and mild MTB trails, but aren't as fast on-road.

I would not suggest any dirt or potholes as originally equipped.

I wouldn't suggest potholes with any bike!

I reckon a bikes ability to handle dirt, trails, gravel, etc has more to do with the tyre width than road vs. mtb drivetrains or disc vs. v brakes...I think the Quick would be fine.

I was intent on finding a hybrid with front suspension because I ride a l lot of trails, dirt, mud, gravel (and a smal bit of DH too). Turns out that after riding it a lot on these terrains I tend to keep the front suspension locked 99.9999% of the time. It's just quicker!

I was looking at the Quick 2 when I was in the market and the ONLY reason I didn't buy it was because it was "more of a road bike" - to me meaning it didn't have front suspension. With the last few months of experience I reckon the Quick would be absolutely fine on everything except serious downhill. Its a true "hybrid" - whatever that means!

Wouldn't you expect to bend or destroy a road rim on a MTB trail though? There's a good reason that hybrid & 29er wheels are heavy and have a lot of spokes.

Look at the wheels on the Quick 1 compared to the Quick CX 1...

Wouldn't you expect to bend or destroy a road rim on a MTB trail though? There's a good reason that hybrid & 29er wheels are heavy and have a lot of spokes.

Look at the wheels on the Quick 1 compared to the Quick CX 1...

That's a good point. I didn't think about spokes... Mine does have a lot - http://www.scott-sports.com/gb_en/product/10058/55803/218068

The poster's type of riding is "to commute, exercise and stress relief" and his surface is "gravel, sand and potholes".

So, regardless of what wheels you have I'd still recommend steering clear of the potholes and for the type of riding he's mentioning I reckon he'll have more fun on the Quick.

Agreed! :) I wouldn't intentionally ride through a pothole even on my 26" MTB, but it does happen. :D