$2500 - Which bike would you buy?

A local bike shop has both of these bikes selling for the same price right now, and I am having a hard time deciding which bike is the better bike for the money.

2010 Litespeed C3-Ultegra: $3,000 - $2,500

http://www.realcyclist.com/litespeed-c3-carbon-bike?CMP_ID=PD_GOO010&mv_pc=r101&s_kwcid=TC|15306|litespeed%20c3||S|b|8028421765

http://www.litespeed.com/bike.asp?content=C3-Ultegra


2011 Scott CR-1 Elite: $2,500

http://www.scott-sports.com/us_en/product/10051/55724/218102



My dilemma is this:

- The Scott bike comes with a MUCH better wheelset than the Litespeed bike does, and is a little bit lighter weight bike, equipped with a full SRAM Rival groupset.

- The Scott does not have is a BB30 bottom bracket, and it doesnt have a staggered bearing size headtube. This only concerns me because it seems that all other manufacturers have gone this route and leaves me wondering why Scott hasn't.


My question is, should the non-staggered headtube, and lack of BB30 concern me? Is the wheelset enough to outweigh those things? Wheels can be changed on any bike, you can't redesign the BB and HT on a frame.

Is the Litespeed a better bike all in all that I should pick up and worry about better wheels down the road?

Any input would be great, let me know what you guys think.

Thanks in advance.

 

Main dilemma, IMHO, is carbon fiber vs. titanium. I won't even state my preference, I've done it many times here before. Sounds like a heck of a deal for an Ultegra-equipped Litespeed.

 

Both bikes are carbon. According to one of the bike magazines, Litespeed sells something like 4 carbon bikes for each titanium it sells.

 

There should be a "truth in engineering" statement that manufacturers are required to put out in order to seperate the marketing bumpf from fact.

I don't think the lack of BB30 is going to hurt you too much. Cannondale had BB30 all to themselves for a decade but that didn't stop Trek bikes from dominating the Tour using regular bottom brackets...

The different bearing sizes, with the larger in the bottom of the headtube could be a different thing entirely. It's something that you could almost put down to a safety upgrade as it allows manufacturers to produce forks with less abrupt changes in the lower fork crown area. I have such an arrangement on my Crank'n'fail and it'd be interesting to know how much this layout has to do with it's telepathic handling on descents.

 

Ultegra over Rival so I would go with the Litespeed.
Wow Factor goes to Litespeed it looks much slicker than the Scott.
Take them both out for a ride and get the one that makes you the happiest. Cant go wrong with either one.

 

Silly me.

 

I can't testride the Litespeed. It has an integrated seat mast that has to be cut for the person buying the bike. From the people I've talked to that own them, it seems to be a very responsive frame.

Only one person voted on the poll !? =/

 

m0b00st, I didn't vote since I haven't ridden either bike, so I don't think my vote would mean much. I'm sure there are plenty of people here that have ridden both and could give an experienced opinion.

FWIW, just reading the specs on both bikes I would lean towards the Litespeed. I like the Shimano equipment since I've had the same 105 group on one of my bikes for 27 years and it still works great.

And I just think the Litespeed looks awesome!

 

The LightSpeed looks pretty slick. Go with it, and ask for new wheels for Christmas or something if you feel you need to upgrade later on.

 

I have seen both bikes at LBS'S .the litespeed looks great, but without a test ride-no way. the LBS that has the litespeeds in my area said that they were going to bring in a 56 so they could offer a bike to test ride and hopefully be able to supply a bike that the majority of cyclists could try .Once the seat post is cut the owner of the bike shop explained to me that there is some kind of internal seat post that can be inserted internally as for resale and such (used ) . Did not seem to make as much sense as I would have liked it to ,and if the scott was in the equation - than I would jump up to the CR1 pro with ultegra and ride the hell out of that.

 

The price jump to a CR1 Pro is not in the equation.

The seatpost you mentioned for the Litespeed is an aftermarket piece that can be put on the bike buy cutting of the seat mast, and using a traditional clamp and a seatpost that is designed to fit the hole left behind. I cant fault the shop for not butchering a bike just for me to test ride it.

PS - Just some general info in case anyone cares. Litespeed has changed the design back to a traditional, adjustable aero seatpost for 2011 (although this doesn't help me out at all because the shop doesnt even have a 2011 in yet for me to possibly test ride), just thought I would mention it for anyone that might be interested.

 

thats good info for all of us . I wouldnt mind test riding one of these litespeeds in the future .Cant blame the LBS for not cutting the post for you or anyone else. seems to me that bike maufactuers who put a product out on the market such as this - shoot themselves in the foot- you know that bike sits on the floor for along time and even faces being returned by the LBS . So few would make such a purchase . sorry to here that the CR1 pro is not in the equation - without testing the litespeed I would have to go with the scott CR1elite. nothing wrong with the scott's , they are an excellent product in my opinion .

 

I'm just not sure that I'm convinced that a test ride is the end-all-be-all of decision making. Even when you test ride a bike, you are not properly fitted for the bike, and dont have a true feeling of it. I guess this is what brings me to my dilemma.

 

Yes - I have to agree that it is not the end-all-be-all , but without the test ride its hard to make an educated decision . I can see why you are torn . the litespeed is a killer bike - nice aerodynamics etc .