Hydrated

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?

zpl

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.

supcom

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.

Bacciagalupe

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.

mandovoodoo

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!!!

2wheelie

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....

Bekologist

Soma Smoothie ES.

schweeeet.

mandovoodoo

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!

MTBMaven

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

Hezz

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.

bmike

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.

supcom

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.

Bekologist

...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.

bobbycorno

All good arguments for riding a 'bent. 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.

USAZorro

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.

Longfemur

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.

bobbycorno

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

Road Rash

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)

USAZorro

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.

bobbycorno

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

ericgu

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.

Bacciagalupe

A warranty doesn't help me if my frame snaps at mile 75, in the middle of nowhere.

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.

The Smokester

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.

mandovoodoo

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.

Hydrated

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.