medHBT

Hello everybody, I'am new here, and I want to purchase my first road bike. My choise is between Rose Pro SL Disc and Ribble Endurace AL Disc beacause I want an Alu Frame, so I'm wondering which best between the two bikes?

bruce19

I can't answer your specific question but don't ignore Cannondale, Condor, Mason and Bowman. They all make very nice AL frames/bikes.

bruce19

rubiksoval

Carbon is best.

shelbyfv

Links https://www.rosebikes.ie/rose-pro-sl...ke-now-2672228 and https://www.ribblecycles.co.uk/ribbl...rance-al-disc/

bruce19

I know you are throwing this out there kind of tongue in cheek (not sure that's the right phrase). If you have $10K to spend I wouldn't disagree. But, if you have $3-4K to spend I think AL is a better bang for the buck. A friend of mine was a Bianchi rep and he let me borrow a new CF Bianchi (not sure of the model...this was 5 yrs ago) and I would take my CAAD 12 over it every time. FWIW, my CAAD12 W/105 cost me $1350. That was two years ago.

rubiksoval

100% not tongue-in-cheek.

If I had $1500, I'd buy a used carbon bike (I actually bought a new aero carbon Felt on ebay for that much) If I had $5,000, I'd probably buy a Canyon carbon Aeroroad or similar.

f I had ten grand, I'd probably build up an aero carbon bike and a superlight carbon bike, because two carbon bikes is the only thing better than one carbon bike.

Carbon is better in every conceivable way: price, weight, configurations, layups, etc., etc. Not a chance on Earth there's an AL bike that's better bang for the buck.

I have a 14.5 lb carbon bike I built up for just over 2 grand. 14.5 lbs. It's phenomenal.

blakcloud

First, they are both excellent bikes so no matter what you chose you will be well served. Second, don't get sucked into the crap above arguing about carbon vs aluminum, it has nothing to do with your question.

The biggest difference between the bikes is the style, one is an endurance fit and the other is more of racier fit. The Ribble will have you sitting more upright with a longer head tube which can be a more comfortable bike for some. For others they want a bigger saddle to bar drop and more aggressive position for that racier position. One isn't inherently better than the other, just different. You have to decide what kind of fit you want on the bike.

Component wise they are equal with both having 105 which is an excellent choice. Frame material there is a difference between the two different types of aluminum but for the average person they would not be able to tell the difference between the 6061 or 7005. Each frame has its merits. The next biggest difference are the wheels. I am not well versed in aluminum rims to tell you which is better value. They are both made by high quality companies so I wouldn't be too concerned.

On-line there seems to be limited stock so this may be your limiting factor, being able to actually purchase one. Last colour matters for some, at least for me and we all know red bikes are faster. Good luck with whatever you chose.

Sy Reene

Actually, be wary of this. The Ribble is called an "Endurance" but it's really pretty comparable geometry-wise I believe to eg. a Trek Emonda. Not really that much of an upright fit IMO.

blakcloud

You may be correct here between the Ribble and Trek. It is hard to compare the bikes because of Ribble's limited sizing but once can go to https://geometrygeeks.bike/ and pop in the bikes and do the comparison. Though, I still stand that there is a difference between the two bikes the OP listed.

shelbyfv

The websites don't specify what bottom bracket either of these have. With aluminum there is little reason to settle for a press fit. A proper threaded bottom bracket would be a significant plus. Edit- I see now the Ribble has a legit BSA threaded bb.

Maelochs

I don't have time t do a comparison and (my standard) 28-paragraph post (count your blessings) but I can say": CF snobs are exactly that. For most riding Al is absolutely fine.

I am always afraid to put a CF bike on the rack on my car .... or dropping it. For a pound more (which only matters if you are hypercompetitive and your competition has super-light bikes) I have a bike I can load with as much gear as I want, o sling on my car, or whatever .... and as far as ride goes ... a good Al frame with CF fork can be excellent---and i have steel and CF bikes as comparisons.

But .... if you are looking to save money, I got a great deal on a year-old Fuji .... (not sure if "great deals are even available nowadays ... )

Sorry I cannot be more help, but I am trying to finally secure (part-time, but still) employment after the CCP virus devastated my income. I will be back to clog the Interwebs later.

rubiksoval

How is it snobbery to assert that one bike material is better than another for both performance and value for money? Have you ever watched a professional race? How many riders are on aluminum? Why is that? How many amateur racers are on aluminum? Again, why is that? They're all about performance and value, so...

For most, riding anything that functions is fine. But that's not really what anyone is here about.

My first five bikes were aluminum. There are certainly great aluminum bikes, just like there are great titanium, steel, bamboo, whatever bikes.

But none of the best bikes are any of those things. And...there's a reason.

znomit

If it's your first road bike you should get something from you local bike shop so you know it fits and you can get initial services done and it's assembled correctly.

Otherwise buy the one you prefer the colour of.

Maelochs

I agree mostly with @znomit---at the very least visit the local shops (assuming there are any, assuming they are open, assuming they have bikes to test, assuming they let you test .... whatever.) Fit is probably the most important thing (pretty much anything you say here three different people will argue---I bet some folks would disagree if you told them you thought they were right and agreed with them (really, I don't do that anymore ... as often)) and every body needs a different set-up.

As @blakcloud noted, some people want to have their chests almost touching the top tube, like pro racers, and some folks prefer to sit a little--or a lot --more upright. You need to figure out what works for you (which is tough because as you ride further your capacities and standards will change ... but anyway ... ) So if you can sit on a few different sized-frames and get an idea of what you are looking for that helps.

Now please ... just buy a bike so I can get back to work.

bruce19

Maelochs

I like the video---breaks things down pretty honestly, IMO.

WhyFi

Not for nuthin', but a lot of the better aluminum road bikes out there are have tube sections like soda cans. If you think those are more robust and can stand up to more abuse, you're probably both overestimating the resilience of aluminum and underestimating that of CF.

medHBT

I posted this question because I does not understand the difference between the two prices. The Rose is at 1600 euros and the Ribble is at 1430 euros with the same configuration. So where is the difference?

Maelochs

The added cost is the decal on the downtube. Some decals are really expensive.

Schlafen

Bikes are not always priced like for like.
Demand, build specifics, manufacturing price etc can play a big role in RRP.

The Rose bike seems to be available is size 45, which is the only one they seem to stock and it has 27.5/650b/650c wheels which is not common on road bikes (more common on gravel/off road/adventure bikes).

This may be the price difference here as 700c is the standard wheel size for road bikes. Catering to a niche market segment can demand a premium.
The Ribble bike offers a standard'ish bike setup for size xs.

If you are short, and these 2 bikes are your only options, I would go for the Rose bike, smaller wheels will help you ride with more confidence and feel like you have more control, especially as it's your first road bike.

Unless you are racing at a high level and in single digits body fat %, there are many options than what the 'racers' use or what the UCI approves.

Comparing the average mamil plonker to racing standards is not only idiotic, it's delusional. Most high level racers are not even comfortable riding their bikes in the positions they do, but they are racing not relaxing, comfort is not primordial for them.

If your position changes as you get more experience riding or you become more flexible, sell the bike and get a different one that will fit your needs then. If you are comfortable on the bike you tend to ride more.

Russ Roth

You're making a pretty big assumption about value for money let alone performance. Although I think in general carbon is nicer there's no way its a better value for money. Carbon frames are fairly expensive compared to the average aluminum frame and some carbon get down right ridiculous price-wise. Top end Specialized, Trek, Pinarello and others offer marginally better performance for $8-12,000 framesets that people actually buy for some goofy reason. Some will get you marginally better aerodynamics and shave a lb or 2 but for the average rider a top end aluminum frameset will perform as well as anyone really needs. Dollar for dollar aluminum is a better value, carbon isn't inherently better, and its really not a great value.

OP: Ribble doesn't fully list the differences. But the DT wheelset on the Rose is better then the Aksium and the Ribble uses their own label parts vs low end ritchey which might be better or worse but no way to compare. Wheels are a part though.

rubiksoval

Carbon gets "downright ridiculous price wise" because it can be manipulated and shaped so much more than aluminum. You start trying to make aluminum as light or as shaped and tuned as you do with carbon, you start getting perilously thin tubes that you can pinch together with your fingers. The average aluminum frame is a chunky, heavy piece of metal that rides like a brick.

If carbon isn't inherently better, why is it that even aluminum bikes have carbon forks? Why such a huge push towards carbon wheels? Why is every bike in the pro peloton carbon, and most nearly every bike in the amateur peloton carbon? Inherently better is putting it lightly.

Again, the average rider doesn't need anything more than a bike that functions. A 25 lb steel bike with Shimano Sora is more than the average rider needs, but it has nothing to do with what the majority of people here want.

Russ Roth

carbon forks are chosen because aluminum and carbon forks emerged close together while aluminum tech wasn't that good and early aluminum forks sucked. I'm sure a decent fork could be produced but what's the point.
Although there are plenty pushing towards carbon rims it isn't as big as you're making it out to be.
The pros ride carbon because the brands have dumped lots of money into it and can oversell it for absurd pricing. The ameteurs do what the pros do.
I've got a carbon road bike. Without a doubt it is a really sweet bike that I love to ride. My cross bike is steel, my mtb is aluminum as is my touring. The steel is still the nicest of them but there is nothing wrong with the aluminum carand Althoughthey certainly aren't bricks. Carbon can be manipulated in ways the other materials can't making it more versatile but the companies that do so way overcharge making it a fairly poor value for a large segment of the population. Local shop has a pinarello frame hanging on the wall for 11000. For that price I bought my fully custom rock lobster with campy record/chorus mix, my wife's Cannondale cross with custom king wheels and her new full suspension c-dale mtb with upgrades and money left over. How is that frame a good value or any others so rediculously priced?

cruiserhead

Carbon isn't "manipulated and shaped" It's put into a mold. The mold dictates the shape.
Aluminum can be highly shaped by hydroforming.

High quality aluminum and cheap carbon hit a crossroads in weight.

Carbon isn't inherently better. Good carbon is dependent on good manufacturing. 50% of a carbon frame is epoxy.
Construction quality matters. That costs money.

Carbon is inherently lighter so a fork with thick steerer tube walls and fork crown, will save a lot of weight.
On a frameset, the weight difference can be 0 to several hundred grams.

I would take a well designed scandium frame and give up a 2-300g with a far better performing rig than a cheap carbon one.