I need some bike advice.

[leon94]

Make sure you don't take up the whole lane of the road when you ride your bike too.

 

[RapidSnail]

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: DonVito
There is no "fastest" frame material. Frame geometry is 100 times more important than frame material when it comes to your overall speed.

I understand what you're saying, but you have to understand that you can't be fast if you're not at least reasonably comfortable.

By way of illustration, I worked in a bike store about 12 years ago, and our two biggest lines were Cannondale (oversized AL and stiff as hell) and Bridgestone (traditional lugged steel with standard tube diameters).

People who test rode our bikes nearly always loved the C'Dales, which were very stiff and thus very responsive on a short ride. That said, they were often less enthusiastic about them after owning them for a couple of months, because the bikes would beat the hell out of them on long rides.

The people who bought heavier, flexier steel Bridgestones nearly all loved them, however, and the B'Stones were also far more popular among the employees of the shop.

AL bikes are a lot better now than those crappy old C'Dales were, but the same principles still apply. I know I would never, ever feel disadvantaged by racing on a steel Serotta, Richard Sachs, Della Santa, or any of dozens of other great steel bikes.

QFT. Geometry is key to getting the best out of a bike. But lighter is better for performance racing. It hurts more usually, but you end up getting speed on the climbs.

For an average rider though who rides longer distances, steel, Ti, or carbon fiber is the way to go. Steel being the most affordable and most traditional, but also the heaviest. Aluminum is nice too, but definitely not the most comfortable. I get third leg, if you know what I mean.

Yeah, riding my dad's AL bike kills my groin .

Another thing I'd like to know about is frame weight. How much heavier are the heavy materials like steel than the lighter materials? How big is the pound differential, and how much does it impact speed?

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

I understand what you're saying now. A heavier, more comfortable frame helps you in the long run (or bike ) better than a lighter, stiffer frame.

In that case, wouldn't Ti be better than steel? Someone else said that Ti has the same comfort as steel, but is also lighter.

That is a matter of personal preference. I have a ti Serotta MTB that is just mind-blowingly great. Ti is a perfect material for MTBs IMO, since it is so tough and resilient, and rides so nicely. That said, as much as I love my ti Moots road bike, it doesn't have quite the same feel as steel. It's still a killer bike, but other things being equal I think I'd rather be on steel. As silly as it sounds, I think it doesn't help my perception of its ride that the bike looks like a battleship - I think next winter I'll get it painted and see if that makes it "ride" better.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Another thing I'd like to know about is frame weight. How much heavier are the heavy materials like steel than the lighter materials? How big is the pound differential, and how much does it impact speed?

Modern steels have gotten really really strong, and it's possible to make a reliable steel bike with a frame that weighs under 4 pounds. On the other hand, there are now many CF bikes that are just over 2, which is amazing to me. In particular, the Scott CR1 and Cervelo R3 are incredibly light and stiff.

I don't find this type of weight difference all that noticeable in practice - imagine if you lost or gained 2 pounds from your current body weight, and whether you'd be able to tell a difference during vigorous activity. You can really feel a difference when you add or reduce wheel weight, but frame weight is much less critical IMO.

It's really worth taking some long test rides. I helped a friend buy a bike a couple of years ago. His goal was to spend $1,500-2,000, and he test rode the usual suspects (Specialized, Trek, LeMond, Bianchi). He also test rode a Serotta CSi, and before I knew it he had spent $3,500 on it! He just fell in love with the ride, and there really is no better-riding bike than a CSi.

 

[DaShen]

Originally posted by: RapidSnail
Yeah, riding my dad's AL bike kills my groin .

Another thing I'd like to know about is frame weight. How much heavier are the heavy materials like steel than the lighter materials? How big is the pound differential, and how much does it impact speed?

You will find at low speeds, 15-20 mph. There is not a noticable difference. But as your speed increases, even a 4-5 pounds difference feels drastically different (especially on a climb). The speed diffence will be different for different people.

I used to ride MTB when I was younger, but I got injured bad on my right knee. I decided to quit mountain biking and try to pick up road biking with friends. I trained on my cousins 35 lb old MTB bike for about six months while riding with my friends. Eventually, I was leading the group most of the time, and I averaged 18-20 mph. Again this is a mountain bike 35 pounder with mountain bike wheels and tires. Again you can alleviate some of that by getting expensive slick tires. When I got to hills though, one of my friends could climb better than me. But after I got a used road bike (24 pounds), my average speed increase quite a bit (I rode a Metic century at a good 25mph pace). Now with my new bike (sub 17), I can sprint and hold pace very well.

 

[DaShen]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

I understand what you're saying now. A heavier, more comfortable frame helps you in the long run (or bike ) better than a lighter, stiffer frame.

In that case, wouldn't Ti be better than steel? Someone else said that Ti has the same comfort as steel, but is also lighter.

That is a matter of personal preference. I have a ti Serotta MTB that is just mind-blowingly great. Ti is a perfect material for MTBs IMO, since it is so tough and resilient, and rides so nicely. That said, as much as I love my ti Moots road bike, it doesn't have quite the same feel as steel. It's still a killer bike, but other things being equal I think I'd rather be on steel. As silly as it sounds, I think it doesn't help my perception of its ride that the bike looks like a battleship - I think next winter I'll get it painted and see if that makes it "ride" better.

Ti is a bit rich for my blood. Steel is definitely a good ride, and I know some pro riders still prefer it, but most of the contenders go for weight, aerodynamics, and geometry over tradition and comfort nowadays. True comfort is important because over time the wear on a long tour will beat you up, but most of those riders can fight through the pain. They had a special 6 months ago on the Bike Across America. One of the riders, was riding with so much pain for a 3-4 days that they finally took him in to get xrayed. He had a fractured hip bone that he had been riding on. CRAZY, but riders and athletes in general tend to fight through pain.

**EDIT**
I have major problems with my legs now, from basketball and just plain crazy stunts as a kid. I still ride.

You will find that perfecting geometry will take care of most rider comfort anyways. And carbon fiber is definitely a cushy ride. Very comparable to steel, just not as durable.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: DaShen

Ti is a bit rich for my blood. Steel is definitely a good ride, and I know some pro riders still prefer it, but most of the contenders go for weight, aerodynamics, and geometry over tradition and comfort nowadays. True comfort is important because over time the wear on a long tour will beat you up, but most of those riders can fight through the pain. They had a special 6 months ago on the Bike Across America. One of the riders, was riding with so much pain for a 3-4 days that they finally took him in to get xrayed. He had a fractured hip bone that he had been riding on. CRAZY, but riders and athletes in general tend to fight through pain.

Just to be clear, though, aerodynamics and geometry are completely unrelated to one's choice of frame material. I personally think steel is a superior material for reasons that have nothing to do with tradition - I have ridden some very high-zoot AL and CF bikes, and in fact my day-to-day ride is a $4,500 ti bike. I simply feel steel offers the best possible ride, along with the important collateral benefits of being very tough and easily repairable (particularly if it's lugged).

 

[DaShen]

Originally posted by: JinLien
LOL, live and learn young Paquin.

For most rider comfort is the uttermost important factor because it is what make & break the rider. A rider will be in much better shape for the last sprint to the finish line if his/her body isn?t sore due being beaten up by a stiff bike for the entire duration of the vigorous ride.

That is why Carbon Fiber is so good. Light and cushy. Ti is good as well, but hella $$$$

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: DaShen

You will find that perfecting geometry will take care of most rider comfort anyways. And carbon fiber is definitely a cushy ride. Very comparable to steel, just not as durable.

Actually I'd say steel and CF ride more differently than any two different frame materials. CF has decent shock absorbency, but it is dead stiff, whereas steel is comparatively flexible. They feel completely different. I have really enjoyed long rides on CF bikes, but they tend to feel a little wooden, and I find the ride generally kind of odd because of their deadness.

 

[RapidSnail]

Well, I'm going to leave for now to do some more research, and later tonight I hope to hit up the bike shop and check out what they've got. Thanks to everyone for all the help you've given me so far. I'll report back later.

 

[JinLien]

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: RapidSnail
Yeah, riding my dad's AL bike kills my groin .

Another thing I'd like to know about is frame weight. How much heavier are the heavy materials like steel than the lighter materials? How big is the pound differential, and how much does it impact speed?

You will find at low speeds, 15-20 mph. There is not a noticable difference. But as your speed increases, even a 4-5 pounds difference feels drastically different (especially on a climb). The speed diffence will be different for different people.

I used to ride MTB when I was younger, but I got injured bad on my right knee. I decided to quit mountain biking and try to pick up road biking with friends. I trained on my cousins 35 lb old MTB bike for about six months while riding with my friends. Eventually, I was leading the group most of the time, and I averaged 18-20 mph. Again this is a mountain bike 35 pounder with mountain bike wheels and tires. Again you can alleviate some of that by getting expensive slick tires. When I got to hills though, one of my friends could climb better than me. But after I got a used road bike (24 pounds), my average speed increase quite a bit. Now with my new bike (sub 17), I can sprint and hold pace very well.

All of my training, racing, touring bikes are between 17 & 22 lbs and to me I don't think there are much different between them.

Like others has said get a good geometry bike (measure your body for bike fitting) is very important and an inexpensive decent steel frame with decent parts can be trim down to 18-19 lbs, which is not much different when compare to a carbon/titanium frame.

There are no frames/parts that are impervious to breakage in a pile up, however you can minimizes the cost by picking the right bike that will lead you to the winning podium with out breaking the bank at every spill.

 

[JinLien]

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: JinLien
LOL, live and learn young Paquin.

For most rider comfort is the uttermost important factor because it is what make & break the rider. A rider will be in much better shape for the last sprint to the finish line if his/her body isn?t sore due being beaten up by a stiff bike for the entire duration of the vigorous ride.

That is why Carbon Fiber is so good. Light and cushy. Ti is good as well, but hella $$$$

I find carbon fiber rear end is too whippy for my riding style.

 

[DaShen]

Originally posted by: DonVito
Just to be clear, though, aerodynamics and geometry are completely unrelated to one's choice of frame material. I personally think steel is a superior material for reasons that have nothing to do with tradition - I have ridden some very high-zoot AL and CF bikes, and in fact my day-to-day ride is a $4,500 ti bike. I simply feel steel offers the best possible ride, along with the important collateral benefits of being very tough and easily repairable (particularly if it's lugged).

Yes, true.

Also, agreed. But weight is still important in a race environment. You can get a high end steel for the same cost or cheaper nowadays, and replacing or repairing is very easy. Plus it is durable on rough rides. I don't think I saw anyone ride the Paris Roubaix on Carbon Fiber. But for average roads Carbon Fiber, is cushy and light for the climbs if you race with hills. So it is the best for performance. Once you crash though , you better be willing to shell out money on a carbon fiber though. Steel can be banged up to an extent, and still be easily fixed. All I know is that if you do a lot of climbing Carbon Fiber or Ti are both very nice rides. Todays Carbon Fiber frames are very structurally sound, too. A light crash probably won't mess anything up. A full on crash will more than likely damage something. A 4-5 years ago they weren't the best thing on the block, but now they are quite good. They have even made a Carbon Fiber MTB bike with is light and a good ride and sturdy, but hella $$$.

 

[DaShen]

Originally posted by: JinLien
I find carbon fiber rear end is too whippy for my riding style.

Ever ridden a Scott Carbon bike. OMG. Those are so nice, but so expensive.

*****************

Originally posted by: JinLien
Like others has said get a good geometry bike (measure your body for bike fitting) is very important and an inexpensive decent steel frame with decent parts can be trim down to 18-19 lbs, which is not much different when compare to a carbon/titanium frame.

There are no frames/parts that are impervious to breakage in a pile up, however you can minimizes the cost by picking the right bike that will lead you to the winning podium with out breaking the bank at every spill.

But trimming down a bikes weight by components and especially wheels can be quite $$ in and of itself.

If the OP is willing to do that though, that wouldn't be a bad idea.

 

[UTmtnbiker]

For $1300 (you mentioned you may be able to get another couple hundred from your folks) if you're looking at a new bike, you're going to be firmly in the realm of aluminum (or as DaShen says, Al with CF seat stays). I also thinkyou'll be smack dab in the middle of production bikes also, nothing boutique but companies that make stuff in the hundreds of thousands if not millions (e.g. Trek, Giant, Specialized). Nothing wrong with production bikes, as they do tend to cost a little bit less than say a Scott. However, you'll be riding a lot of what everybody else in the world is riding also. That may or may not be a consideration for you.

Also...as DonVito has said, there is no "best" materials for frames. Sounds like Don's been around the block or two with bikes. I'd like to think I have also...had the pleasure of riding steel back in the early 90's, Al and metal matrix in the mid and late 90's and now, I'm riding full CF. I'm sure by the turn of the decade I'll have the experience of riding Ti At this point comfort has started to become more of a priority. I've found that both CF and steel are very comfortable rides, but I'd give the nod towards CF in comfort. I can't comment on modern steel frames but I'd imagine they're even livlier than they were when I was riding them. Al is very lively, but also very, very harsh. You feel every bump, crack, or rock in the road. To me, it's a very tiring ride.

I can't stress this enough....1) ride the bikes and then ride them again. Buy the one that "feels" the best to you. Ride two or three different lines, or whatever the shop has as you'll find that same materials, different bikes will feel very differently (the geometry thing that Don talked about above) 2) make sure they fit you properly

 

[UTmtnbiker]

Yeah, the CR1 is to drool for. Before I bought my Tarmac, I test rode that and the Orbea. CR1 was my top choice, followed by the Tarmac, and then the Orbea. Went with the Tarmac however as I couldn't justify the price difference ($700) for maybe a 5% (more than likely unquantifiable) better (livlier) ride.

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: JinLien
I find carbon fiber rear end is too whippy for my riding style.

Ever ridden a Scott Carbon bike. OMG. Those are so nice, but so expensive.

*****************

Originally posted by: JinLien
Like others has said get a good geometry bike (measure your body for bike fitting) is very important and an inexpensive decent steel frame with decent parts can be trim down to 18-19 lbs, which is not much different when compare to a carbon/titanium frame.

There are no frames/parts that are impervious to breakage in a pile up, however you can minimizes the cost by picking the right bike that will lead you to the winning podium with out breaking the bank at every spill.

But trimming down a bikes weight by components and especially wheels can be quite $$ in and of itself.

If the OP is willing to do that though, that wouldn't be a bad idea.