Which one of these?

mattyb

I am looking at these two bikes. There is a $500 difference (Australian dollar).
This one has an alloy frame but seems to have slightly better parts:
alloy bike
and this one has a full carbon frame but parts seem not quite as good:

carbon bike

Is it better to go for the better frame of better parts?

janiejones

Yes, as you said the Alloy bike does seem to have some "better" parts - I have heard Easton wheels are rather good - and although the R500s on the Carbon bike are probably heavier and a little cheaper, they are still a pretty tough wheel - some people like them, some not.

the alloy has full 105 whereas the carbon is a mix of tiagra and 105. So I think you need to decide what you want in a bike, do you want carbon and why, or do you want alloy and why, or should you look around for a mixture?

This is a good time of year for sales.

Is there a reason you have chosen this brand?

mattyb

A friend owns a bike store so I get a good discount on this brand.
I like the idea of carbon but don't know if will make a difference

Wayno

Do you have to get an Apollo?

Why not the Giant TCR C2 (on sale now for $2500) or the awesome Scott CR1 Team

__________________
wayno

mattyb

Yes - the Giant would an and extra grand onto the sale price for very similar specs. For the price of the Scott, I could get two Apollos or probably the top of the line Dura Ace model - which is just way too much.

mattyb

Well I guess the only bits that seem to make a difference for me are:
*the frame: carbon vs alloy - no experience with this
*the bottom braket/crankset - no idea about this really
*wheelset - although if I am honest, it's mostly athetics - weight seems to be pretty similar (within 100g) and the Easton may be stiffer / harder ride? due to the aero profile.

Any comments about these points would be greatly appreciated.

Wayno

The frame is all that matters, everything else is upgradable. I am unsure about Apollo/ Raceline carbon but generally carbon is a more forgiving ride whereas aluminium is usually harsher on the body.

Personally I wouldn't get an Apollo.

__________________
wayno

mattyb

Any particular reason?

janiejones

I don't really know why this is so - Apollo is a brand that does not tend to make it to the "posh" levels of cycling - I think some other brands suffer from the same discrimination -Azzuri/Learsport for one other example - you can buy a Columbus Zonal Azzuri with carbon seat stays and forks with an ultegra group for $2100 which is pretty good value - or you can buy a Cinelli Unica made from the same material and pay pretty well the same price just for the frame (and who knows they are probably both made in the same factory on the same machines, operated by the same workers - on a very low wage I imagine).

I think a lot of it comes down to what is written on the down tube - yes of course - some bikes are better than others, lighter, stiffer etc. But it really depends on what you plan on doing with your bike.


I have owned a lot of different brands - Bianchi, Orbea, Giant, Apollo, Raleigh - and the ones that have been my all time favourites have been those that have had the best fit and the ones that I had the most enjoyable and memorable rides on, not the bikes that had the "best" name or material.

Actually one of my all time favs was the Apollo I owned some years ago - steel frame with downtube shifters and Shimano RSX - it was smooth, a good fit, took me to many interesting places and helped me get fit again.

Wayno

I prefer a aero downtube of the a Cervelo over a Apollo one. The research, quality and testing that goes into a bike is represented in that name on the down tube, it is its brand and identity.

I still would not get a Apollo.

__________________
wayno