Cell bikes or others offering value for money?

Questions about purchasing bicycles and parts

Cell bikes or others offering value for money?

Postby Brods1675 » Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:58 pm

Hi all. I've been kicking around here a while and have posted. I was considering a Trek 1.7 roadie, but have had the financial handbrake applied, so need to find something well equipped, but cheaper. As indicated in my other thread I'm 200cm, so require a big frame, and don't particularly like the look of being a big person perched on a compact frame. This is why I was originally considering Trek.

I've read a bit about Cell bikes through these forums. Can anyone tell me if their frames are, firstly not compact and large enough for my height of 200cm. I see they do a 62 cm frame. They look to provide good components for a reasonable price, especially when compared against some of the bigger names.

I've been particularly looking at the Cell Triumph and Cell Team. However in the 62cm frame the top tube in these two bikes seems to differ by a fair bit, with the Triumph being the longer, hence perhaps more suitable for my height and reach. The Triumph has carbon rear & forks, carbon seat post, a mix of Ultegra & 105 and R550 wheels. It also looks tasty, which lets face it, is important.

As always I'm looking for the thoughts & input of all you geniuses out there.

Cheers, Andrew.
User avatar
Brods1675
 
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2007 8:46 pm
Location: Flinders Island, Tasmania

by BNA » Sat Sep 01, 2007 3:00 pm

BNA
 

Postby sogood » Sat Sep 01, 2007 3:00 pm

Firstly, I think that compact or no compact has no objective bearing in relation to your height and rideability.
Bianchi, Ridley, Montague, GT, Garmin and All things Apple :)
RK wrote:And that is Wikipedia - I can write my own definition.
User avatar
sogood
 
Posts: 16906
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 7:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Postby Brods1675 » Sat Sep 01, 2007 4:57 pm

I understand your point of view, but a mate of mine has a Giant with a large frame, and frankly looks silly perched on top of it. I'm the one who has to feel comfortable on the bike, and part of that is 'feeling' comfortable with the look.
User avatar
Brods1675
 
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2007 8:46 pm
Location: Flinders Island, Tasmania

Postby sogood » Sat Sep 01, 2007 5:35 pm

Brods1675 wrote:I understand your point of view, but a mate of mine has a Giant with a large frame, and frankly looks silly perched on top of it. I'm the one who has to feel comfortable on the bike, and part of that is 'feeling' comfortable with the look.

Ok, so it is based on subjective judgement. :wink:
Bianchi, Ridley, Montague, GT, Garmin and All things Apple :)
RK wrote:And that is Wikipedia - I can write my own definition.
User avatar
sogood
 
Posts: 16906
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 7:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Postby europa » Sat Sep 01, 2007 5:50 pm

Nothing wrong with subjective feelings about how things look, but I don't feel anywhere near as silly on my bikes as I look :shock:

Richard
I had a good bike ... so I fixed it
User avatar
europa
 
Posts: 7327
Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2006 10:51 am
Location: southern end of Adelaide - home of hills, fixies and drop bears

Postby sogood » Sat Sep 01, 2007 6:13 pm

I never said there's anything wrong with subjective opinion when there's no objective data to say one is better or worse than the other, as in this case. Given the lack of clarity on the angle of that statement in the original post, I was just clarifying it.
Bianchi, Ridley, Montague, GT, Garmin and All things Apple :)
RK wrote:And that is Wikipedia - I can write my own definition.
User avatar
sogood
 
Posts: 16906
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 7:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Postby europa » Sat Sep 01, 2007 6:18 pm

I was funning with you mate, not having a shot :D

Richard
I had a good bike ... so I fixed it
User avatar
europa
 
Posts: 7327
Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2006 10:51 am
Location: southern end of Adelaide - home of hills, fixies and drop bears

Postby Brods1675 » Sat Sep 01, 2007 7:09 pm

it boils down to how I feel on the bike doesn't it? The bike also does have to fit me appropriately. From what I've seen of bikes with compact frames the top tubes and overall geometry are smaller than more standard frames. I'm 200 cm, or 6'7" in the old language, so need something to accomodate this. hence my talking about top tube length and overall reach to the handlebars.
User avatar
Brods1675
 
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2007 8:46 pm
Location: Flinders Island, Tasmania

Postby europa » Sat Sep 01, 2007 7:55 pm

Don't be put off by compact frames. They have their place and one of their virtues, if you can get a frame big enough to do it, is being able to maximise the head height while minimising the standover height.

Sadly though, at 6'7", I doubt anything off the rack is going to fit you - used to that are you?

How about you contact Tim at Velosmith and see what he can build you. I nearly bought from him but chased a cheaper price instead ... and wound up spending more on the exercise than his bike would have cost to get something that's not quite right whereas from him, the chances of that would have been less or none (when I consider what went wrong).

You can put stupid seat posts and ridiculous stems on frames that are too small. 'tis better to have the right frame to start with. Have a yarn with Tim and see what he can do, and don't be put off by the price - how many duds do you want to buy before you accept the inevitable (again, I'm thinking of your unusual by cycling standards, height).

Richard
I had a good bike ... so I fixed it
User avatar
europa
 
Posts: 7327
Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2006 10:51 am
Location: southern end of Adelaide - home of hills, fixies and drop bears

Postby Brods1675 » Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:30 pm

so far, from the people I'm talking to (guys I work with etc, not bike shop used car salesment) it sounds as though I might be able to get away with a 62cm frame, or XXL in whatever brand, perhaps with a couple of tweaks like a longer neck to the handlebars etc.

As indicated the fun police has stepped in and said that $2K was too much, so I'm now working inside that sort of price range.....
User avatar
Brods1675
 
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2007 8:46 pm
Location: Flinders Island, Tasmania

Postby sogood » Sat Sep 01, 2007 9:11 pm

Brods1675 wrote:From what I've seen of bikes with compact frames the top tubes and overall geometry are smaller than more standard frames. I'm 200 cm, or 6'7" in the old language, so need something to accomodate this. hence my talking about top tube length and overall reach to the handlebars.

Not true. With compact frames, you have to get their virtual top tube lengths to compare with traditional geometry frames. At the end of the day, all you'll need to worry are the three contact points. At 200cm, you might care to consider custom frames.
Bianchi, Ridley, Montague, GT, Garmin and All things Apple :)
RK wrote:And that is Wikipedia - I can write my own definition.
User avatar
sogood
 
Posts: 16906
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 7:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Postby toolonglegs » Sat Sep 01, 2007 9:21 pm

You would fit on my cannondale no prob...it is a 63 and is the first bike I have owned that I had to put a shorter stem on.On your current bike what is your measurement from center of bottom bracket to top of seat...and front of seat to middle of the bars on the tops?.I can measure mine and give you an idea on the sizing of a 63cm.I dont think an XL compact would be of any use as you would have to have a stupid long seat post which even if it was a 35mm would flex like crazy.How much do you weigh?.Problem is you would probably better of with 180mm cranks as well.I am longer in the legs than in my reach so also struggle with bike fits.I need a long seat tube and shorter top tube.
User avatar
toolonglegs
 
Posts: 14331
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 7:49 pm
Location: Somewhere with padded walls and really big hills!

Postby mikesbytes » Sat Sep 01, 2007 9:31 pm

Giant's guide on compact frames shows your height as the maximum for their XL compact frame.

http://www.honedesign.com/sites/giant/magentareign/compact_road.html

At your size, I would guess that the features of a compact frame are negated. It would be interesting to hear from some really tall guys who ride compacts.
A helmet saved my life
User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
 
Posts: 14726
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 10:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney

Postby triode12 » Sat Sep 01, 2007 9:41 pm

For what it is worth....

A fellow rider on a Bike North ride today, recounted a crash he witnessed involving a person on a Cell carbon bike.

Apparently the owner of the cell bike tried to overtake him and his female companion on the left (inside). This was just before his friend was about to turn left. The Cell bike owner crashed and turned his carbon frame into splinters.
triode12
 
Posts: 472
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2007 8:35 am
Location: Sydney

Postby Zujan » Sat Sep 01, 2007 10:02 pm

As I said before I’m 196 and riding Cervelo Soloist 61 frame with 130 stem. I did not need any extra long seat posts (which can be supplied if needed) as mine is pull out by 211mm (340mm standard seat post).Even if Cervelo makes 63cm frame I think that I will stick with 61cm as I feel really comfortable on this frame. Cerelo Soloist is not standard frame but it is not compact either. It is, what they call it, sloping frame, which means it has sloping top tube. But as you are 200cm I would strongly recommend at least 63cm frame in standard geometry. As I said before, try Cannondale they are making some really big frames.

From Cervelo site;

A sloping frame is a frame that has the toptube higher and the headtube than at the seattube, as opposed to a traditional frame that has a horizontal toptube. It really doesn't change anything important in the geometry, the headtube, bottom bracket and saddle, the only points you connect with on a bike, are still in the same spot.

There are however some small differences between sloping and traditional frames that can be exploited in design. If you have two frames that are made identically except for the sloping vs. horizontal toptube, then the following can be observed:

1) slightly higher bottom bracket stiffness for the sloping frame
2) slightly higher torsional stiffness for the horizontal toptube frame
3) slightly lighter frame with the sloping toptube
4) slightly lighter seatpost with the horizontal toptube frame
5) slightly more seatpost compliance with the sloping frame.

Issues 3 and 4 are a wash, and for us at Cervélo the choice between sloping and horizontal depends on what combination we are looking for out of 1, 2 and 5. For our Road bikes, which have plenty of bb and torsional stiffness anyway, we go with a sloping toptube (or a dropped toptube on the tri bikes which has the same effect) to get a bit more seatpost compliance.

Compact geometry is the use of a sloping toptube to convince people you only need to make 3-4 sizes. As is obvious from the above, nothing changes in the way a bike fits when you make the toptube sloping. So if you need six sizes in a traditional geometry, then you still need six if it is sloping. Henceforth we're not big believers in compact geometry. But the terms compact and sloping are really used interchangeably by many people, so make sure you understand
2011 Cervelo S3/SRAM Red Black/Zipp 404 T,3T Team
2010 Cervelo R3/SRAM Red, 3T Team,Fulcrum Racing 1
Zujan
 
Posts: 345
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 9:28 pm
Location: Sydney south

Postby Brods1675 » Sun Sep 02, 2007 9:44 am

This appears to have turned into a debate over compact v traditional frames :o . It's interesting to see what both camps are thinking.

Just as a side line I saw that Trek 1.5 is available in a 64cm frame. I have considered Cannondale, and even know the local dealers. My biggest problem is I got in big trouble for wanting to spend $2000 on a Trek 1.7 (new 2008 model which comes out soon), so this sort of rules out Cannondale, as from my understanding they're more than that.

I note the comment about the Cell carbon frame, presumably still under warranty but you've got to survive the prang to claim the warranty.
User avatar
Brods1675
 
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2007 8:46 pm
Location: Flinders Island, Tasmania

Postby toolonglegs » Sun Sep 02, 2007 9:47 am

$2000 does rule you out of a Cannondale....Don't buy a second hand one...unless it is real good deal,they are not called Crackendales for nothing.
No warranty in prangs...wish there was :wink: Bicycle Aus insurance thou.
A trek 64 sounds pretty good.
User avatar
toolonglegs
 
Posts: 14331
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 7:49 pm
Location: Somewhere with padded walls and really big hills!

Postby triode12 » Sun Sep 02, 2007 9:57 am

When I was shopping for a bike late last year.
The Cannondale CAAD9 Optimo with 105 drivetrain and tri bars was $2300. It was a current model back then so it should be cheaper now, it being the end of the model year.

What about a custom 531 Lugged Steel Frame from Cecil Walker?
http://www.cecilwalker.com.au/category105_1.htm

$1100 for the frame
$290 for Shimano 550 wheels from Cell bikes
$590 for Ultegra gruppo from Pro Bike Kit.
$200 build fee from LBS

$2185

Just a bit over your budget. But it'll last for years and fit you right (that is if you get your measurements right tho).
Last edited by triode12 on Sun Sep 02, 2007 10:40 am, edited 2 times in total.
triode12
 
Posts: 472
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2007 8:35 am
Location: Sydney

Postby Brods1675 » Sun Sep 02, 2007 10:06 am

what's the difference between the Cannondale CAAD and Synapse models? There seem to be so many different models offered I'm getting a bit lost....
User avatar
Brods1675
 
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2007 8:46 pm
Location: Flinders Island, Tasmania

Postby triode12 » Sun Sep 02, 2007 10:09 am

Brods1675 wrote:what's the difference between the Cannondale CAAD and Synapse models? There seem to be so many different models offered I'm getting a bit lost....


The CAAD models are designed for racing while the Synapse models are more for recreational riding (more comfy geometry).

CAAD9
Cannondale Advanced Aluminum Design. The starting point that leads to finish lines. For riders who race, not pose. The all-new Cannondale CAAD9—advanced aluminum design, advanced further. CAAD9: Rated #1 in torsion-al stiffness by VeloNews magazine.



SYNAPSE ALLOY
An overachievement in aluminum frame design. Sloping top tube, longer head tube, hydroformed S.A.V.E. chain stays, and biaxial hourglass sloping seat stays combine for all-day performance riding comfort.



And the CAAD models are made in the US while the Synapse models are made in Taiwan.

I have a suspicion that Giant manufactures the Synapse frames for Cannondale. Like they do for many other manufacturers including Trek and Specialized.
Last edited by triode12 on Sun Sep 02, 2007 10:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
triode12
 
Posts: 472
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2007 8:35 am
Location: Sydney

Postby triode12 » Sun Sep 02, 2007 10:17 am

The Cannondale bikes within each frame type all use the same frame.
e.g. the CAAD9 frame fitted with the Ultegra gruppo is the exact same CAAD9 frame fitted with the 105 gruppo. Only the colours and drivetrain are different.
triode12
 
Posts: 472
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2007 8:35 am
Location: Sydney

Postby triode12 » Sun Sep 02, 2007 10:25 am

You might like to read this about Cannondale...

http://www.cycletrack.net/parts/frame/thread6.html
triode12
 
Posts: 472
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2007 8:35 am
Location: Sydney

Postby Brods1675 » Sun Sep 02, 2007 11:49 am

[
quote]What about a custom 531 Lugged Steel Frame from Cecil Walker?
http://www.cecilwalker.com.au/category105_1.htm

$1100 for the frame
$290 for Shimano 550 wheels from Cell bikes
$590 for Ultegra gruppo from Pro Bike Kit.
$200 build fee from LBS

$2185


Just a bit over your budget. But it'll last for years and fit you right (that is if you get your measurements right tho).[/quote][/quote]

This certainly becomes an option but means creative accounting becomes necessary. Perhaps I order the frame and tell her the 'bike' cost $1100. :lol:
User avatar
Brods1675
 
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2007 8:46 pm
Location: Flinders Island, Tasmania

Postby MountGower » Sun Sep 02, 2007 12:10 pm

Error. This post can no longer be displayed.
Last edited by MountGower on Tue Feb 15, 2011 3:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
MountGower
 

Postby triode12 » Sun Sep 02, 2007 12:23 pm

Or Mavic CXP33 aero rims laced to Ultegra hubs. :wink:
triode12
 
Posts: 472
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2007 8:35 am
Location: Sydney

Next

Return to Buying a bike / parts

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: redsonic, usernameforme



Popular Bike Shops
Torpedo 7 Torpedo7 AU
Ground Effect Ground Effect NZ
Chain Reaction Cycles CRC UK
Wiggle Wiggle UK
Ebay Ebay AU



InTouch with BNA
“Bicycles BNA Twitter
“Bicycles BNA Facebook
“Google+ BNA Google+
“Bicycles BNA Newsletter