MrClyde

I have done a search, but I know someone out here will be happy to impart some of their personal experience for me!

February, I bought a Scattante Roma from Performance. It is an AL frame, flat bar "hybrid" but is closer to a road bike than a mtn bike. It came with 28's on it, I have changed them to Gatorskins 25's. I have lowered the handlebars by adjusting the stem and moving 2 of the spacers from below the stem. I am riding clipless, with Forte road pedals. I have ridden almost 2,000 miles since Feb. Weeknight evenings I ride 15-25 miles 2-4 times per week, with longer rides on the weekends. My longest ride so far is a little over 80 miles, but included Palomar mountain. I am doing the Poway Century in a few weeks.

On a flat road, I can maintain around 20 mph solo for a couple miles. Most of my rides with little to moderate climbing, I end up with a 15-18 mph ride average. I know that is not super fast, just putting that out there for reference of my current ability.

I am riding for fitness, health, and because it is a lot of fun. I am itching to get a road bike now. I'm about 6'2" and about 245 lbs.

Here's the question. How much bike should I buy? The first question the shops as is "What's your budget?" That's a fair question, but I'm not sure what my budget should be. I want a good enough bike that I will be happy with it for a while, and not have buyer's remorse in 6 months. I want to get better at climbing, but at my size, is a 15 lb bike vs a 17 lb bike any different? I guess my problem is, if I felt it was worth the money, I would spend $4k on a bike. But if I won't feel a difference between that and a $2K bike for 3 years, I'd rather save the money for wheels, gear, etc.

So after all of this, I was leaning towards something like the Cannondale Synapse or Carbon Six, I am going to test ride these. But the sales guys, as soon as they sense you have a higher budget, start talking how great all the top level stuff is. And I bet it is. But does it really make that big of a difference? Or will I be perfectly happy with a 105 or Ultegra setup? It's not like a 30 min test ride is going to show that much difference. I'm not set on Cannondale, although they look like really nice bikes.

Any of you go through this 6 months or a year ago, what choice did you make, and would you do it different?

flip18436572

I have been on my low budget bike for over 2 years now and still enjoy it. It is all Sora components, but that is just me. I have been on bikes with better components, and I wish I had them, but it won't make my legs and cardio better.

I think you should find the bike you enjoy the way it rides and go for it. Who really cares about everyone else. I ride what was in my budget back then and it was not over $550 new. I bought from the only LBS that treated me worth a darn. I think that matters more than the brand name of the frame, since almost all of them are made in China anyway.

old and new

WEll said, not much much I can add to that other than that the OP would be wise to consider your same bikes, hard to wrong with Jamis. Simply viewing that site is enlightening.

socalrider

The difference in performance between the different groups is very slight.. when you move from 105-Ultegra-Dura Ace, you are getting slightly better performance, I do mean slightly.. Mainly you are getting Brand Name and lighter equipment.. For most people they do fine on bikes with 105 or Ultegra..

Like most Clydes if you buy a higher end bike, make sure the wheels are made to hold up your weight over time.. A lot of shops will do wheel swaps for something a little more durable..

flip18436572

I guess I should update my signature. I still have the two Jamis that I bought new, but I also bought a used Hardrock for attempting mountain bike riding.

MrClyde

Thanks for the feedback, sounds like I don't need to spend at the upper end of the price range to get the same performance.

pennstater

Sounds like you've made great progress in a short time. As your fitness level changed your fit on your bike changed and your expectation from your equipment also changed. This may continue for some time. For me, the periodic improvement took about 4 years to level off.

I just finished building my "final" ride. Decided to go with a titanium road frame. Wish I had done it earlier. Get the frame right. Everything else wears out, especially at our similar weights.

People see components differently. Sorta like cars. They pretty much all get you there. But, if you find joy in the getting it can become quite expensive quickly. I have a bike with 105 for gravel and wet conditions. I also have one with Dura Ace. Function is very similar. But to me the hands on feel is a whole different level.

When the shop asks what you want to spend try telling them you have no preset number. It's a matter of trying out all levels to determine what suits your needs and wants. If you are not sure after a thirty minute ride it probably won't make a difference to you.

Also upgrading components is easy if you have the aptitude and can actually be fun. As mentioned above don't skimp on wheels. Even if you can't tell the difference on a test ride, invest in a quality wheelset.

meanwhile

I'd suggest that the OP would be better off with a cyclocross bike and 32 or 38mm tyres made out of low rolling resistance rubber. The only advantage of 25mm tyres is a marginal reduction in air resistance at very high speeds - TT speeds, or the speed of a pro rider pulling a peleton. At lower but still racing speeds - say Roubaix speeds - a wider tyre won't just be more comfortable and grip and turn better but will be faster because of lower rolling resistance. Go look at the tech docs on Schwalbe's site.

A cross bike will also be built tougher - and a lot of fun offroad. And handle riding in bad weather better. Its only disadvantages compared to a road bike at the same price will be a couple of pounds of extra weight and less twitchy handling handling - which is only a disadvantage if you're fighting for position in a pack, otherwise it's a plus when you don't lose teeth to a pot hole. I'd suggest a Kona Jake or Jake The Snake fitted with Marathon Supreme tyres.

markdavid570

I'm in a similar situation now...I just have lower budget is all. I have a Giant FCR and I really want to get a road bike. I looked at Cannondale initially because I liked the way the CAAD9's looked, but after riding a couple, I wasn't totally sold. I also tested a Scott Speedster that I liked, but ultimately I wasn't happy with the shop and so I moved on.

The shop I use now deals mostly with Trek, Giant, and sometimes Masi. I've been considering the Trek 2.3, Trek Pilot 2.1, Giant TCR Alliance 1, and the Masi Vincere. At this point I'm leaning toward the Trek 2.3. It's all aluminum (except for the fork) which I like...I don't have a problem with the ride quality of my current aluminum bike, and while I don't expect it to be quite as soft, I think I should be fine. Besides, I think I'll feel more mentally comfortable on aluminum, but I'm also taking other factors into account. With that being said, I'm currently leaning toward the Trek 2.3. All aluminum, 105 group, more aggressive geometry but with a slightly longer head tube. I would probably want 25c tires as opposed to 23, but that's all stuff I'll figure out when I get closer to buying. Of course test riding will be important, but through my initial research I think this is where I'm leaning.

I've also heard that the difference after going above 105 isn't all that huge if you're the "normal" rider.

MrClyde

I had never considered a cyclecross bike, I will have to take a look.

Long term, I will end up with multiple bikes. So maybe a decent entry level bike would be a good way to go now. That will give me a good rain/poor weather bike as well.

The biggest reason I got the 25's is so I could go higher pressure. I run them at 120 psi, the ride is smooth and it seems to roll and accelerate better than the 80 psi 32's the bike came with.

b_young

I am pretty convinced that no matter what you get you will love and have some buyer remorse over anyway. Your price range will get you a really nice bike. Just make sure that the bike fits you. That makes the biggest difference.

This year I got a Specialized Roubaix and love it. My wife has the buyers remorse for us. It has zerts in the frame that help dampen road noise. I like that the best because the roads are not great around here. My biggest delima was double or triple crank. I went with the double. I like it but still not sure if the triple would have been better or not. Instead of wandering if I made the right choice, I just ride.

Whatever you get post pics.

meanwhile

Most wider tyres that come stock with bikes are optimized for cheapness and puncture resistance. Both these properties make for slow tyres. If you go to Schwalbe's site they're pretty good at rating their tyres for rolling resistance, grip, etc.

Other easily found cross bikes: Trek X series, Spec Tricross, Raleigh RX. All fast, tougher than road bikes, more versatile. And much better suited to riders who radically depart from the 155lbers that racing bikes are designed for.

Palomar01

I have only started riding road bikes for a few months now. I do about the same mileage as you during the week but have not done centuries. I have no plan to...yet. I currently have a Fuji Roubaix with the Shimano 105/FSA components.

To me, the biggest change from this bike from my old MTB was the weight and the tires. My old MTB weight over 32 lbs. The Roubaix weighed in at 20 lbs. at Performance Bike's scales. The Roubaix also had a much more efficient frame to transmit the power I was using to forward motion.

However, once I got the Roubaix and all of its performance advantages over my old MTB, there was not much I could do to improve its performance except my own body. Now I climb faster and cruise faster, but going to a lighter bike with better components will NOT improve that. Only I can improve that by being stronger and loosing more weight.

BTW, my Fuji Roubaix cost $900 OTD and uses 23 tires (120 psi). It has a AL triangle frame but uses CF for the forks and rear seat stays. This gives the bike a great ride without the cost of going full CF. I believe this is the only bike that comes this way at this price range. All other bikes with CF fork and seat stays are well above $1,500. I love this bike! I love its looks and its value to performance ratio. I have no buyer's remorse whatsoever. I would buy the bike all over again. I also have no plans to upgrade next year or later.

meanwhile

You're talking about energy loss to frame flex; this is now exploded as a myth, thanks to use of strain gauge power meters. Losses of pedaling to frame flex either don't exist or are trivially small. Bike company marketing keeps the myth going, but it's very careful to avoid claims definite enough to be testable.

The Fuji does have a reputation for a good ride. However the presence of CF in the stays almost certainly isn't the reason*, although it does sex the bike up for marketing purposes. And you do know that a frame with any CF at all in it should be professionally inspected after even a minor crash and might have to be junked as a result?

I think the Fuji probably is a good buy - but that's not because of anything to with frame flex or those carbon stays.

*Carbon is supposed to kill road buzz because it resonates poorly. However loaded structures don't resonate - they don't have the freedom to move. And seat stays are definitely loaded, with the weight on the saddle. Carbon main tubes otoh do make sense.

lbear

First of all you are doing great!
Your question "I want to get better at climbing, but at my size, is a 15 lb bike vs a 17 lb bike any different? "
IMHO No. Think of it this way... with a weight of 245 to begin with, spending $2000 to change from
"bike+rider weight = 260" to "bike+rider = 262" will not be noticed. Money would be better spent on a good wheelset. You will notice a change in wheels.

Palomar01

I am not a road bike expert so I will leave the science to those who know. However, I test rode two other bikes in the Fuji Roubaix' price range--all except the Roubaix had AL seat stays. Without knowing much about CF, it was immediately obvious to my sensitive butt that was so used to a full suspension MTB that the Roubaix had a much smoother ride than the other, full AL frames. Whatever was causing it, I chose the Roubaix because of that smooth ride.

As for the professional inspection after a crash, I'm not concerned. I'm not going to turn away from a bicycle with CF just because of that. I ride for fitness and fun. I don't ride to crash. If I did crash, I would be worried about other things. In addition, no matter what, CF is THE up and coming bicycle frame material for many other reasons beside its drawbacks. Most middle/higher end road bikes either use CF on many parts or on the whole frame. AL is now the entry level material for road bikes. So the choice has been made for us if you want to buy higher end bikes.

Finally, my comments about efficiency was directed at my transition from a full suspension MTB to a road bike. So it wasn't frame flex but the weight and the bobbing rear suspension I was referring to. Definitely a HUGE difference there.

FlatSix911

Take a look at a Titanium Cyclocross Bike.

Based on your responses this might be the perfect match for your needs.

Shimano Ultegra 6700, 20 Speed Cross Team Ti $1795.99
https://www.bikesdirect.com/products/...cross_ti_x.htm

pennstater

Loaded structures do resonate, however the resonance frequency will vary with the load.

Though quality wide tires may not exhibit increased rolling resistance, they will take more effort to accelerate and climb due to their higher mass. Rotating mass, particularly at the end of the wheel which will rotate at the highest rate is most critical. However, this will also work in you favor on the flats as bodies in motion tend to stay in motion, just as bodies at rest tend to stay at rest.

As far as bang for your buck, you can't beat the Scattante Titanium Road (made by Lynskey) or Cross frames at Performance. I've seen the road frame as low as $800. Or consider Steel or Titanium used. I would not trust a used carbon frame. I have a wonderful Look 585 carbon bike that is a dream to ride. I have a 25 mile ride to work including cobblestone streets in Manhattan - on 23mm tires. But though carbon is incredibly strong it does not handle impact as well as Steel or Titanium. I bought the Titanium frame for traveling and find it almost as enjoyable as the carbon with none of the drawbacks. If I had to have only one frame, it would be a Titanium road frame.

Personally, I don't like the higher center of gravity on Cross bikes, nor their brakes. If you choose a road frame with clearance for 28 tires you get the best of both worlds, assuming you won't be riding anything rougher than packed cinder rail trails.

Bottom line is don't believe anything any one person says here except don't skimp on wheels and no carbon seat posts. Ride them all then decide.

meanwhile

Not when they're getting repeated changing impulses, which is the case with a stay. (Ok forks do RARELY go into noticeable resonance but this is rare and speed/road dependent. Resonance is not the cause of road buzz.)

More effort, yes. As in the work done to change bike speed due to tyre weight will change from 0.5% to 0.75% of the total. But if you are saying that a few hundred grams of extra rubber will noticeably slow a bike down then you are talking utter nonsense. Highschool physics should let you prove this for yourself, but here's some extra help:

I.e. about 0.5%.

This is something that people who haven't done the maths think, yes. In some senses it is true - for some calculations rim weight counts double the same amount of frame weight, but everything has to be scaled by the total weight of the bike PLUS THE RIDER. Which rather tends to drown out the effects of a few grams of rubber even when the rider is a skinny dwarf, let alone a Clyde.

There isn't one. Or rather some bikes are high CG, some have CG at regular height. As with road bikes - real turn-and-burners for crit racing have higher CG too. I favour a little CG raise on a crosser - it lets you pedal through aggressive corners and you don't pay a stability penalty because the frame angles are so much more tolerant of road flaws.

Cantis are powerful but you you have to spend a few minutes understanding how to adjust them. By comparison dual pivots are idiot proof. How much this should matter to you depends on your assessment of your mental capabilities.

Nonsense. A bike that can run a 25 or 28 has nowhere near the versatility of a bike that can run a 25 to, say, 40.

A 28mm is a good match for cinder trails - if the rider weighs 155lb.

Really - what part of this is rocket science??? Heavier riders benefit from wider tyres. To get the same braking ability, turning, cushioning, and plain not-sinking-into-gravelness that a 155lb rider gets from 25 or 28s they need more contact area.

By definition "skimping" is wrong, however it is perfectly possible to get cheap tough wheels if one doesn't submit to voodoo-based weight loss "performance" criteria. Myself I'd say "When people tell you something is true, ask them what their evidence is."

Honestly: unless you're riding fast enough so that you would benefit from using aerobars if an event allowed them, then low RR 32 to 38mm tyres have huge benefits. A simple alu frame will feel better than the most expensive all CF bike, and you'll get the sort of braking and turning ability that can save your ass - all for a measly 0.5% performance loss.

Just be careful which tyres you buy - Marathon Supremes are pricey, but they're fast and tough.

pennstater

I repeat:

Loaded structures DO resonate.
Do NOT listen to any one poster on this board, particularly any that believe they have all the answers.

I've been on CF frames that will rattle the fillings out of your molars and aluminum frames that were smooth as silk. Besides frame design, this can also be a function of wheel construction, tires and inflation pressures.

All solutions come with a compromise. Only you can determine whether to accept a 1% higher effort over 80 miles. If you're going around the corner anything will work. Climbing the hills around me I will grab that 1% whenever I can.

Don't worry, whatever bike you purchase will probably not be your last.

By the way, I stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night.

Hill-Pumper

I'll add one more option to the mix here. A nice touring bike is very versatile with lots of attaching points for gear, fenders and such. Plus they usually come with Clyde friendly wheel on them. I considered a Jamis Aurora Elite before I bought my road bike last year. I wanted something a little snappier, and my Giant OCR A1 provided that. With that being said, I wish I had known about cross bikes last year. Since I bought my Kona Jake this year, I have only ridden the OCR for organized events, and that is because I still had the knobby tires on the Jake. I just put a set of 700x35c Schwalbe Marathon Plus' on it yesterday and my first test ride could not tell much difference between that and my road bike. As of now I plan on taking my Jake on next weekends metric century ride. So, if I were to do it again, I would have bought my cross bike first, and added something more race oriented for a road bike if I felt the need to really let lose.

meanwhile

You do know what a Roubaix is, yes? It's a bike with less taut but softer riding geometry for long distance racing on crappy roads. Any Roubaix bike should ride softer than a regular racer - because it has made the appropriate design trade offs, NOT because of the magic of carbon stays!

What a novel approach!

This doesn't make any sense. A minor crash can permanently subtly damage a CF frame, leaving it in a state to SNAP! any time you hit a pot hole thereafter. Why ignore this problem because there are other things to worry about in a crash?

So? High end racers are made of CF for (hopefully) valid engineering reasons. If these reasons don't apply to CF stays then why put it there on an alu bike?

You can buy *much* nicer bikes than a Fuji Roubaix in alu still. Although I think CF does make quite a bit of sense in a road racer - as opposed to just a fast road bike.

Ok. But next time it would make sense to say that, especially as otherwise the OP might have thought that you were actually saying relevant to him and the non-suspension hybrid he's switching from. Which you appeared to be but weren't.

meanwhile

Your Jake would go noticeably faster if you'd put Supremes on it instead of Pluses. (See Schwalbe's own ratings.) Now you'll have to wait forever for those Pluses to wear out - they're tough.

Palomar01

I test rode it against the Schwinn Fastback Elite and Fuji's Newest 1.0 and a Scattante something. I don't believe any of those bikes can be considered "racers".



I never said I was ignoring anything. It's only a problem IF I crash. Since I have not crashed, it's not a problem. My point is, I will not avoid a CF framed bike just because of this.


Geez! Don't get your panties in a bunch. It's only an Internet Forum!

Hill-Pumper

Speed was not my first concern when I bought the Pluses, If it were, I most likely would have gone with a true slick. The known durability and puncture resistance, along with the price savings were was fueled my choice. That plus the place where a bought them did not carry the Supremes, , so I opted for the pluses.