So this is starting to sound like 'you are probably best off to try them all and go with what feels best to you'... if money is no object

just chewed up... ok - pretty easy to diagnose.

Chain wear is too...

thanks.

Easy to diagnose when clean.

I think familiarity is pretty much everything, really. They feel natural to me, and because they do, by definition the Campy system does not. But of course, had I been brought up on Campy shifters I'd probably have the opposite opinion.

Vance, so far, I've not found that my Campy Chorus to be any more finicky than my Ultegra. Granted, I haven't had it long. The group was used, it has maybe 4000 miles on it, but the cables were new and did some "break in stretching". I've adjusted twice to fine tune that out and that's it. There have been NO other issues.

I must say that my Ultegra group has been stone reliable. It doesn't have that solid feel that the Campy Chorus does, and I do think Chorus shifts faster, but that's totally moot. I had 105 on my Felt, and it too was just fine. When I went to the Ultegra group, I decided that it seemed to have a more refined feel to it, and that the front shifted better. But, the 105 was just as accurate and reliable.

Hi, based on personal and second-hand experience, any of the higher quality groups (Shimano Ultegra and up, Campagnolo Athena and up, SRAM Rival? and up), function well and should be reliable. How reliable a group will be depends on your riding conditions and how much preventive maintenance you do. The was an article on cyclingnews.com (I think) where this company tested chains on a machine and they tortured the chains (sand, etc). The bottom line was that if you clean things regularly, even if they get dirty, they will continue to perform well. If you don't, you can destroy a chain and cassette in a few hundred miles.

If all of the major component groups function well then how do you choose between them? Personal preference. Which levers feel good to you, what group looks good on your bike, which system works easier for you, etc?

There are tons of anecdotes about how this system in the best thing since sliced bread and how the same system is an engineering abomination. Take all stories with a piece of rock salt.

Also, my view on which level of group to buy. Get the best that you can afford. At least with Campagnolo, the higher you go, the longer the stuff lasts. Functionally there are small differences but the biggest difference is that my Record parts with 15K miles on them look practically new when I clean them up. The materials are better (titanium versus steel) or the finishes are better quality (chrome, anodizing, etc). My Chorus stuff is more worn with a lot less miles on it. I think the same holds true for levels of Shimano and SRAM.

Gearing up Racers' check list

Edgar topped up: Check
Sponsor's kit on with jersey zipped up: Check
Matching helmet and sunglasses: Check
Legs shaved: Check
On bike: Check
Race.

I agree with Cleave that keeping the drive train and ders clean makes a difference. I have my Cervelo in LA set up with D/A and the Cervelo at home with SRAM red. I am focused on the workout and not the equipment. On the bike, it takes a few shifts to change from one system to the other and then I am good to go. I can suck with either D/A or SRAM.

Well, if the goal is to suck but have great gear I've got the pole position locked down. Oh wait, I don't have great gear....

The goal is not to suck but the point is equipment is not going to make much, if any, difference in results for beginners.

I am living proof of that. Oh, throw gender in there, too.

Quoted for truth. Was out recently with a guy on a Parlee with Zipp Firecrests - 808s I think - Chris King this and that, full Dura-Ace, everything of the lightest and best and in all, as he proudly told me, below the UCI weight limit. I could still take him, though, on my six year-old TCR with openpro training wheels and 105/ultegra mix. And I suck pretty comprehensively.

It's not about the bike. Who said that?

I differentiate between being a cycling enthusiast that likes to ride and race great equipment and fuss over details of SRAM v Campy versus actual race results. Having said that, details matter when competitors are closely matched. Then a watt here and a watt there adds up to a competitive advantage and perfect execution is a must.

Hi, as I've said, I love bike tech and my racing help rationalize owning a bunch of bikes. However, I always tell people it doesn't matter what bike you buy, you still have to pedal the best bike the same way as the cheapest bike. The bike is part of the overall equation, but when you're a racing hack like I am, the bike is just window dressing. Some people don't care what they ride and can ride it faster than I will ever be able to ride any bike. That's great for them and I'm happy doing what I'm doing too. It's a big bike world and there's room for everyone.

Don't stress over bikes too much though. I speak from experience.

I'd say the equipment matters in that you want something 100% functional and correctly fitted and sized and race appropriate. And as Sara can vouch small changes can often result in big difference in performance. It is about the bike, as well as the motor.

I learned a long time ago to not "cheap out" equipment when introducing my wife to a sport, whether it was cycling or skiing. The thought process of putting someone on crap when they start out is inherently flawed.

Conversely, you don't learn how to drive in a Ferrari. My sister-in-law bought an Arabian for her first horse. She spent a lot of time on the ground.

I'll just add that I have quite a bit of gear in the garage waiting to be 'eBayed'. If you are someone who knows you tend towards quality equipment, or think you are going to really get into the sport whole hog, then save yourself some money by getting the best stuff you can afford, right off the bat. IMO, that especially applies to frames. There is a huge difference between the top racing frames, and even racing frames a step or two down from the top. Shovel just experienced that with his new Felt, and I experienced it when I replaced a broken Madone 5 series with a 7 series. When I got my first road bike a few years ago, I knew nothing, didn't know I would race, and I bought a custom steel 68cm frame, decently equipped. I raced it in my Cat5 races, and it didn't hold me back then, but wrestling that beast around a corner or up a hill is a far cry from what it's like now on my 6+ pounds lighter, racing geometry, Madone. The custom steel now hangs in the garage, unused. That's $4K+ sitting there. The best way to save money is to not have to replace anything. It's the constant incremental upgrades that empty your billfold.

All true. Back in the 80's I started racing on a Team Miyata. Great bike. Then I was sponsored by Fuji and was given a Team Fuji. Nice bike, about the same. Then I was sponsored by Basso and was given a top of the line frame, the same one they boxed with the pantographed parts. What a difference.

One can get into some great equipment by shopping for good deals new and used, taking good care of your equipment and flipping it. Case in point. I had two sets of aluminum wheels that I paid about $550 for. I rode and raced them for two seasons and sold them for $350. I replaced them with two sets of used carbon aero wheels that I paid around $1050 for. I won't take much of a hit when it's time to sell them.

Sounds good.

I think for me a lot of this discussion comes down to 'what is the purpose of *this* bike' - and I'm starting to focus in on that. Maybe down the road I'll channel my inner Cleave and have a teams' worth of bikes, but for now if this bike is 1) good for training, 2) good for distance rides, and 3) not overly expensive (thinking 3-bears style), then I think it will have met its design criteria quite well.

I'm going to disagree with you guys about a high end frame being markedly better. If I built up my cheap chinese frame with the same level of parts that are on my Cervelo it'd feel similar. I know that because originally they were build similarly and they felt similar- the PedalForce rode more comfortably and was a little slower handling in turns, which was actually better as the Cervelo is a bit twitchy. I've raced the PF and ridden it in the Sierras and in the Death Ride. It did fine.

As they are now the PF feels like a tank. It's a dedicated winter bike now so when it's FSA crank went bad I replaced it with an Sram Rival aluminium crank. It's got the heavier wheels and PowerTap on it, and fenders and lights. So it's gained a couple lbs. While the Cervelo R3 became a lighter R3SL through the magic of frame warranty and last year got a rebuild with weight weenie parts. Now they feel much more different. But it's mostly the cycle parts that changed, not the frames.

Of course I am comparing CF racing frames, not a say a steel touring frame and a CF racing frame. That would be different, and the extra weight of the touring frame would be a detriment for racing if your races included significant climbing.

I'd be comfortable betting that I've owned more frames total than anyone here, and as a subset more carbon frames*. Or 99.8% of the riding population for that matter. It's a really long list. And I do my own builds so the parts are generally very similar or slowly morph over time.

What I've found is there can be a vast difference in upper end carbon fiber racing frames, in handling and feel.

That said I've won and podiumed on a wide range of frames. Some made the job easier, some harder.

*For grins I put together a list of the brands I've owned. This is just road, not MTB or BMX. Several would be 3 or so, many would be 4 or more. Different materials but mostly carbon, and I'm probably missing a few:

Trek (several)
Time
Moots
Specialized (many)
Orbea (many)
Giant (many)
Pedal Force
Leader
Ridley (many)
Dolan
Cervelo (several)
Scott
Fuji (many)
Cannondale (several)
BH
Bianchi
Dahon
Kestrel
Techno
Shogun

A while back in the 41, I responded to a post about which bikes you've owned. I ended up turning it into a blog entry. Here's the list (road and time trial bikes) without the commentary plus additional bikes since I posted the blog entry:

1974 Lambert Pro (steel, road)
1975 Bianchi Specialissima (steel, road)
1980 Medici Pro Strada (steel, road)
1984(?) Basso (something-or-other) (steel, road)
1985 Vitus 979 (aluminum, road)
1985 Olmo (I-can't-remember) (steel, road)
1986 Shogun Kazé (steel TT)
1988 Serotta Colorado (steel, road)*
1990 Stowe Triad (steel, road)
1997 Bianchi Megatube Ti (titanium, road)*
2000 Bianchi XL EV2 Al (aluminum, road)
2001 Bianchi XL Ti (titaniumi, road)**
2002 Look KG381i (carbon, road)*
2000 Quattro Assi Team 2000 (aluminum, TT)
2005 Look KG481SL (carbon, road)
2006 Look 565 (carbon, road)**
2007 Bianchi D2 Crono Carbon (carbon, TT)
2007 Serotta Attack (carbon, road)
2009 Cervélo R3 (carbon, road)
2010 Lapierre Xelius (carbon, road)
2010 Cannondale SuperSix Hi-Mod (carbon, road)
2012 Cannondale SuperSix EVO (carbon, road)
2012 Specialized Shiv TT (carbon, TT)

*Frame failed (broke)
** Warranty replacement
BOLD Still in my garage

Racer Ex definitely wins on carbon road bikes, but I bet I've had more steel bikes than he has owned.

At this point in my life, I can pretty much predict which frames will work for me based on geometry. My worst prediction was the Cervélo R3. It turns out I didn't understand how the very short front-center dimension on the 51 cm size might affect handling for me. That bike's front end would wash out very easily. After a year of fighting with it in SoCal criteriums, I sold it.

To echo Racer Ex, I can feel significant differences between bikes in terms of handling and ride comfort. My wife calls me a princess (The Princess and the Pea) when it comes to my bikes. I prefer more traditional road bike handling, but with as many criteriums as I do, a quicker handling bikes tends to work better for me as a race bike.

Also, for me, since I have my saddle relatively far back relative to the bottom bracket, as modern road bikes kept shortening their chain stays, I started having issues climbing in the saddle on steeper grades. Anything greater than 6% and I started picking the front wheel off the ground at times. I went slightly longer and slightly lower on my reach to the bars (with the saddle in the same spot relative to the BB) and that alleviated the problem.

Frame geometry and how YOU sit over the bottom bracket can make a big difference in how a bike feels to you. At the same time and similar to what I wrote earlier, some people can ride on anything and make it go fast.

I have no doubt that a properly researched off-brand frame can match up to a high-end frame. My point, though, was that there often is a significant difference between a given manufacturers top-line frame, and their less expensive frame. The top-line frames are going to be stiffer, often significantly stiffer.

I don't disagree. On the other hand, there is an issue about diminishing returns. I seem to remember reading some Giant propaganda in which they had tested the top line T against a lot of the more fashionable competition. They found that their bike was the lightest, but acknowledged that the bottom bracket shell was less stiff than (if I remember rightly) the latest Cannondale. However, the difference was material only at the sort of power outputs that might be a achieved by a track sprinter. For most roadies, even pro roadies, it would make no difference.

Take it for what it's worth, which isn't much. And I have tended to buy the best kit I can afford, it makes little sense not to. But I don't upgrade unless something is broken or I am convinced that I'm going to see a significant improvement. The 2006 TCR I am racing was as good as anything around when I bought it, and is still a very nice bike. If I thought my performance was limited by my equipment, my first port of call would be a wheelset rather than a new frame. But the truth is, my performance is limited much more by my potential for improvement in fitness and skills, and I have yet to put myself in a position in which the equipment might be the difference.

And of course, as Hermes has pointed out, some of this is about one's inclination. I've never been much interested in the gadgetry, I don't care what car I drive, I don't much care what bike I ride, as long as it is functional. If aesthetics were the issue, I'd still be riding a 1980s steel machine.

Granted, I've never ridden a true thoroughbred "race bike" (like a Specialized Venge), but I would postulate this - and it's probably already been said, but I haven't seen it in so many words.

Using my Look 566 as a basis (as Ex has alluded to), a good frame with so so components will be adequate, and just fine for the majority of riders. However, the proper, careful "upgrades" can really transform that frame. As I said on "Training" thread, changing the wheelset, saddle (the Five Points of Contact), bar tape (to white, of course, but this is the new Fizik padded tape and it's the cat's meow) and gearing just made my bike so much easier to ride, and to ride fast as well as climb. Comfort, fit, and proper gearing. My take.

By the way, I was going to change my chain, it has over 4K miles on it. My LBS checked it and said it has a good 1000 miles left (something like 2mm of stretch, and it's clean) so it's still on there. I keep it and the rest of the driveline religiously clean. "Nuff said!