advice on purchasing a new entry level roadie?



http://www.bicyclestore.com.au/Felt-Road-Bikes-c-274.html

Felt have good comparison pricing as they only put the quality into the important things and taper off to ordinary for the rest of the componentry.

Wait for this Felt F75 to go on special or negotiate changing some items for women's items such as seat-stem-cranks.




Or you could go the F80 and save a bucketload of cash.
SKU20852_A.jpg



 
lol, been riding to work and back only. Tried riding 50+k at a time and nearly fell off the bike with boredom. Buying my first home too, which sapps heaps of time.

I visit the crits at nth Wyong with my staffie pup and I am considering bringing my POS bike out for fun. Will try and get cheapest bike and biggest **** award. :D
 
Can i jump in on this action for similar advice - i posted a thread on the 'new bike advice' but arent having much luck - im hoping you fellow Aussies & Kiwis can help me out - looking at a Giant TCR Alliance 1 or a Trek 1500 both run full Ultegra F/R Derailleurs, cranks shfters - Giant is full carbon except Alloy down tube and the Trek is full alloy with carbon forks - both very nice bikes and **** all over my current ride (Repco Vertex with Grip shift gear changing on the aero bars - shes a cracker). Can't decide as both bikes are on the money at $2100 - any advice or experience with Giant/Trek????? :confused:
 
I have been doing a fair bit of research on this exact topic as well. The bikes I have looked at included the LeMond Tourmalet, Felt F75, Kona Zing, Cannondale Synapse (with 105), Bianchi Via Nirone 7 Carbon Mirage and Trek 1400.

From what I can see the LeMond is the best option (for me) based on the components and geometry. There seems to be less of a trade off in mixing cheaper parts in with better ones (e.g. it is all 105 except the brakes, which are Cane Creek - still a good brand. The others all have no name brand brakes. Most have a cheaper crank and chainrings or bottom bracket etc.). I also think that the Bontrager rims are better than the Shimano ones, but not as good as Mavics, so you really need to weigh all the components up.

The other thing that sold me was the geometry of the LeMond, it has a longer top tube (better if you have a relatively long torso) and more length in the headset (therefore higher handlebars for a more old school 80's or 90's style upright riding position). It fits like one or two sizes up from most others due to this and the way the manufacturers measure their bikes (i.e. a 49cm Lemond roughly equals a 53cm Trek, a 61 cm LeMond = actually bigger than a 63cm Trek!).

You are probably best of buying the one that fits you best though, when all is said and done. Also, you might value some other feature more, like a carbon rear triangle (the Felt or Bianchi) and be prepared to trade off a little from the components to get it for < $2K.

BTW, looking through the reviews on roadbikereview.com (http://www.roadbikereview.com/cat/latest-bikes/road-bike/lemond-bicycles/PRD_290567_5668crx.aspx) the LeMond also was the best rated (4.93 from 13 reviews) by its owners, who all loved it.

Regards,
Jezza
 
broady said:
Can i jump in on this action for similar advice - i posted a thread on the 'new bike advice' but arent having much luck - im hoping you fellow Aussies & Kiwis can help me out - looking at a Giant TCR Alliance 1 or a Trek 1500 both run full Ultegra F/R Derailleurs, cranks shfters - Giant is full carbon except Alloy down tube and the Trek is full alloy with carbon forks - both very nice bikes and **** all over my current ride (Repco Vertex with Grip shift gear changing on the aero bars - shes a cracker). Can't decide as both bikes are on the money at $2100 - any advice or experience with Giant/Trek????? :confused:
Both great bikes - decide the matter on fit.
 
Update on my Felt F80. Since I bought it (3 weeks ago), I have had to change both tubes! The first one went when I went to pump up the front tyre and when I removed the pump, the valve just blew off and that was the end of that! The next happend yesterday when I got on it to ride to work and I noticed the rear tyre was flat! For no reason at all! Lucky I had purchased a spare tube the last time I had a problem so I just replaced it. Looks like Felt have really skimped on other componentry but the irony is that for what is probably only 1 or 2 $ extra they could have used decent tubes and this would not have happened. This has left me with a very bad taste in my mouth and really puts me off being able to recommend Felt again. I was already planning my next bike (next year) and now I am not considering Felt.
 
FeltFella said:
Looks like Felt have really skimped on other componentry but the irony is that for what is probably only 1 or 2 $ extra they could have used decent tubes and this would not have happened.
I wouldn't be so quick to blame Felt for that.

Valve stems breaking can happen to any tube - cheap or costly. I've had a few premium Michi and Conti tubes break at the valve stem after installation, so it's not a problem unique to cheap tubes.

Rear punctures also happen all the time. It's an unfortunate fact of riding on the road. IMHO it's a whole lot cheaper and less wasteful to fix punctures with patch kits than replacing them. Obviously, busted stems usually can't be fixed.

Felt do make nice, good value bikes, and a few busted tubes shouldn't detract from that.

n
 
thanks artemidorus and greatbigjezza - fit is hard though also as the shops dont necessarily have the exact bike in the the exact size, the Giant does but Trek dont - also Giant is a compact frame which is completely different to what i am used to and feels like my sons BMX as far as size goes - i was hoping Trek was better to ride cause the guys at that shop are genuine and not hitting the sales pitch as the Giant guys do - unfortunately i think the Giant rides a bit better, about 700-1000g lighter and a bit more responsive - whattya reckon screw the personalities?
 
broady said:
thanks artemidorus and greatbigjezza - fit is hard though also as the shops dont necessarily have the exact bike in the the exact size, the Giant does but Trek dont - also Giant is a compact frame which is completely different to what i am used to and feels like my sons BMX as far as size goes - i was hoping Trek was better to ride cause the guys at that shop are genuine and not hitting the sales pitch as the Giant guys do - unfortunately i think the Giant rides a bit better, about 700-1000g lighter and a bit more responsive - whattya reckon screw the personalities?

Sounds like the Giant is not a perfect fit for you - a compact frame should not feel different to a traditional frame. Seat, bar and pedals should still be where you are used to having them. I would keep trying different bikes until you are perfectly happy.
 
Here is my two cents worth. Going from a fast flat bar triple ring hybrid bike (48-36-26 front crankset) to a road bike with 53-39 front crankset and rear cassette of 12-26 got a bit of getting used to. Now for hills I don't even use the 26 rear sprocket on hills and saved weight and shifting issues but not having a triple front crankset.

I would also suggest buying a bike with the full groupset, for example all Shimano 105. Although it is okay to mix components, I reckon a bike with 105 properly set-up is better that a bike that may have a mix on 105, Ultegra, FSA etc.

And although I am bias I reckon my Giant TCR2 is really good bang for the buck, and the compact frame saves some weight and helps avoid those nasty accidents of slamming the family jewels on the top tube.

James
 
jamesc said:
I would also suggest buying a bike with the full groupset, for example all Shimano 105. Although it is okay to mix components, I reckon a bike with 105 properly set-up is better that a bike that may have a mix on 105, Ultegra, FSA etc.
I cant see why the above would be so. Why should it matter that the whole groupset comprise of components of the same group?

I have bikes with mix-and-match groupsets, even one with Campag and Shimano. They all perform well.

Although the above could be true in respect of Chainsets and FD. Campag ones arent designed to work well with Shimano, at least thats what I have read.
 
jamesc said:
I would also suggest buying a bike with the full groupset, for example all Shimano 105. Although it is okay to mix components, I reckon a bike with 105 properly set-up is better that a bike that may have a mix on 105, Ultegra, FSA etc.
I don't think that this is fair as a blanket statement - I can tell you that mixing DuraAce into 105 is definitely no worse than straight 105! The main gripe I have with the manufacturers who mix components is that the first Shimano component that they will opt out of is the one that Shimano does best, namely the crankset.
 
artemidorus said:
I don't think that this is fair as a blanket statement - I can tell you that mixing DuraAce into 105 is definitely no worse than straight 105! The main gripe I have with the manufacturers who mix components is that the first Shimano component that they will opt out of is the one that Shimano does best, namely the crankset.
I agree that perhaps it is not fair to make this a blanket statement, however I would have thought that components of a groupset are designed to work best with each other first, then with other components from the same manufacturer.

You can mix and match components from all sorts of manufacturers and still have a bike that works well and this is necessary in some circumstances such as a specialised touring bike that may V-brakes from a mountain bike series of components and drive train from a road bike series/mountain bike series groupset.

James
 
jamesc said:
however I would have thought that components of a groupset are designed to work best with each other first, then with other components from the same manufacturer.
Shimano had an open policy of complete interchangeability between 105, Ultegra and DA when they were all 9spd. They were designed to be mixable. I understand that they have gone back to some incompatible mixtures with regard to DA clusters and freehub bodies in the 10spd gear.
 
The Shimano MTB range can also be used sucessfully with road components.

Many commute bikes pair the road shifters with MTB derailleurs, hubs.

Groupset differences are not in functionality (apart from incompatibilities in hubs wheelsets as pointed out by Arte), but more in terms of quality of the product. Dura ace groupset components probably uses better and lighter materials than the other Shimano groupsets.
 
I'd just like to thank everyone for their input. Still undecided on what bike i'm going to buy, but it's been great getting all your tips! cheers! :)
 
greenleprechaun said:
I'd just like to thank everyone for their input. Still undecided on what bike i'm going to buy, but it's been great getting all your tips! cheers! :)
Just to add my ten cents worth,
I bought a Giro 5 weeks ago (after looking at vivace, and Volta (sp)).
full 105 was recommended to me by a bit of a guru at work. He said I should get a good deal that will fall into my budget of 2G + a little extra to get set up.

He was right. I talked to the right guy at the bike shop, and deal done.

At the time my work mate also said "Stay away from triple chain rings!"
Reason: It is a heap of weight and rotational inertia to spin round for hour after hour to use a couple of times (if that) on a ride.
Truth is, you will save energy on a two ring chain wheel, and then use this energy to push a higher gear.
This is especially true on the Giro, as low is 36x25!
Now, my MB is almost lucky to be that!! (Well, not quite, but you know what I mean).
Top is 50x11. That is still a huge gear (122.7" pr rev!). I have not had a hill yet where my cadence was too high in top gear! Yes, you read right. 66km/hr is fast enough for me.
As I say though, it has only been 5 weeks, but I have spent a few years on a MTB on the road. I love the road bike...
 
quickbuck said:
At the time my work mate also said "Stay away from triple chain rings!"
Reason: It is a heap of weight and rotational inertia to spin round for hour after hour to use a couple of times (if that) on a ride.
Truth is, you will save energy on a two ring chain wheel, and then use this energy to push a higher gear.
I'd like to see some wattage figures concerning rotational acceleration of triple cranksets vs double cranksets. Obviously, it is only relevant immediately after a downshift, as when you are maintaining constant speed in a constant gear, there is no acceleration of the crankset. I'm guessing it never goes over 1-2W.
 
artemidorus said:
I'd like to see some wattage figures concerning rotational acceleration of triple cranksets vs double cranksets. Obviously, it is only relevant immediately after a downshift, as when you are maintaining constant speed in a constant gear, there is no acceleration of the crankset. I'm guessing it never goes over 1-2W.
May not be more than 1 to 2w, but there is the extra weight.
I agree the figures are small, but over time it all adds up.

Myself, I'm convinced. No need for a triple chain ring.
The only reason a hill will beat me is because I am not fit enough.