Questions about purchasing bicycles and parts
23 posts • Page 1 of 1
Now I know atleast someone will say this has been covered, and if it has feel free to link me. Looking to pickup a new bike and am in that 6k bracket. The decision i'm trying to make is to go Aero or stick conventional. I live on the Far North Coast and yeah, I climb a fair bit, but I also spend alot of time on flats. Just trying to get an idea of the advantages and hinderances each face, and if its worth it. Looking at the S5, Venge, Propel etc. Or something such as a TCR Advanced SL 0/1.
Well yeah, of course. Though I've heard bad things about the climbing abilities of the more Aero bikes, which is to be expected as it's not exactly the biggest part of the design brief. I like to think i'm pretty Aero and light 5'10" and 61kg
Suppose it depends what sort of riding you do then... for Strava climbing KOM's go light, for racing go aero / stiff / light as poss.
What bad things have you heard about the bikes you have mentioned in regards to climbing?.
Historically the engine (ie rider) has a lot to do with the climbing ability of bikes.
In a perfect world, I would. But I'm more after something that will perform as well as possible at both. Nothing bad really, just that they lack the climbing ability in comparison to lightweight or more conventional bikes
I have a Cervelo S2 and my only complaint is that the bike doesn't feel as 'agile' as others and not as zippy. But once up to speed then it's equal to anything.
Maybe it doesn't climb well but I don't think I'd climb we'll on Cervelo's new 670g frame.
If I did a lot of crit racing on tight courses then I wouldn't ride my S2. Maybe better for longer road racing.
If you're not doing much racing of any kind then I don't think you can go wrong with a $6k budget.
Aero is always omnipresent.
Weight seems to affect riders only in certain road conditions as it's not so much an issue when upto speed. This is all relative though.
The best combination is both. You don't want a wet noodle at the end of the day. A good look at something would be BMC's TMR01 I believe it's called. The same goes for Giant's propel/Scott Foil etc... They're not superlight builds at ~7.3-7.5 kg's.
As an avid climber myself, I'm personally interested in the Aero bikes much more than purely light builds - mainly because they're not heavy either so you get best of both worlds. I'd love to see a test between a lightweight bike and an Aero bike on hilly section of road.
I am getting an S5 and its not a light bike but it still climbs exceptionally well because it has a really stiff bb area. and while it doesent feel light on the climbs it feels like all the power your putting in is getting to the road. It climbs well and handles brilliantly on the descents. I would reccomend it to pretty much anyone.
I was never fan of meria road bikes til this year. Have look at this http://www.merida.com.au/2013-bikes/roa ... -team.html so light . . .
i didn't know they were good until a pro team started to use them.
What does it weigh?
big difference between the last year frame and this years
Legend has it that you can't have both at the pointy end of the market (which you are at, spending 6K). The lightest bikes are less aero.
That said, the hallowed aero chart says that you'll get better speed gains from a skinsuit and shoe covers than the difference between a Venge and a Tarmac.
If I was in your situation, at your weight, I would definitely go light because you aren't big enough to generate the horsepower to make the difference. You're missing 30kgs of muscle to consider yourself focussed on aero at the expense of climbing power. You'd be better off sticking with a disc for TTs if you MUST get the aero... although you'd get better gains training with a power meter, for similar cost.
23 posts • Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: madmacca