Originally Posted by Owboduz
I think you've made my point exactly. There you have an almost-bike. It's still missing a bunch of things. I don't want an almost road bike. I want a road bike.
FWIW. Unfortunately, I apparently made MY point
poorly ...
The pictured bike is only "missing" components because I did not bother to put them on before taking the
in-transition picture ...
The frame needed/needs to be touched up ...
It would certainly take me
less than 2 hours to attach the
missing components, cut the housing & cables, and wrap the handlebars ...
It would probably take
oldbobcat about 30 minutes of his time to perform the same tasks.
Figure any amount of time you want for YOU to add similar components to a similarly unfinished bike frame.
AFTER you own your "Road" bike, you will have to change the handlebar tape from time-to-time
Of course, some people never do.
You can either learn to remove/re-attach cables or make someone like
oldbobcat happy as you fork over £25+ for the labor.
The point which I failed to make was that for the non-competitive rider, the frame is really just something to orient the rider & components AND is pretty much an aesthetic choice AFTER one allows for the maximum tyre size which the frame-and-fork can accommodate ...
The tyre size which a frame and fork can handle
is a bigger deal than you may realize ...
It must have been about 12 years ago when I was talking to someone who had just had a custom WATERFORD frame built for himself ...
The built bike was just over 16 lbs. (
he is a weight weenie) with a porky
Brooks B17 saddle attached to it!!!
His lamentation was that the Carbon Fibre fork he had could NOT accommodate a 700x28 tyre ...
The point that I was trying to make which was lost is that you would have to spend in the vicinity of £1400+ for a bike with comparable components to simply amending (
almost) an(
y) existing frame
+ £400-to-£$1000 in components (
less cost if you are a wise shopper ... more if you are an extravagant shopper, but then you would have a bike closer to one which would cost you £2000+ at a shop) .
FYI. So, for
me, the first revelation was when I put a relatively nice Carbon Fibre LOOK fork on my mid-80s vintage Peugeot ...
While the CF fork reduced the weight of the bike by at least a pound, It did NOT change the ride in a perceptible way ...
HMmmmm.
An extension of THAT particular cycle frame/fork related revelation occurred when I compared the Peugeot to my
fancy-schmancy full CF framed bike where the
only difference in the geometry of the two frames was that the mid-80s vintage steel frame's chainstays were a bit longer ...
Subjectively, the ride was/is NOT different while riding on mountain roadways!!!!
Other than the brake calipers and Handlebar bend, the Peugeot was equipped with comparable-or-the-same drivetrain components ...
1. Dura Ace crankset (Octalink BB)
2. XTR rear derailleur
3. Ultegra front derailleur
And, the same
level of wheels.
Consequently, the Peugeot went from being just my "Winter" bike to being the test bed for "new" components
Sad to say, THAT was a $4000+ (
?!?)
lesson to learn that the frame & rider are, for the most part, simply the Caboose ...
- now, if I were racing, particularly Crits, my perspective on the frames could possibly be different BECAUSE the Peugeot was about 4 lbs heavier than the Colnago ~3 lbs. for the frame
- almost a pound for the steel steerer on the threaded LOOK fork
- a few ounces here-and-there for the alloy seatpost vs. the CF seatpost AND the odd bits
That is to say, that while almost ALL Shimano components (
other than their shifters!!!) are pretty good regardless of the level, NICE components
are nicer ... particularly for the "Wrench" to work with ...
And so, it's generally worth it (
IMO) to pony up
a little more for better components over this-or-that frameset if one has the budget for it ...
And, the
sweet spot for ALL the major component groups is a level or two below the
high-zoot stuff ...
- so, that means choosing either Ultegra or 105 instead of components from a lesser group or instead of Dura Ace
- and similarly, choosing either Chorus or Athena instead of Super/-Record the gulf between Chorus & Athena is greater than between Ultegra & 105 ... where the obvious-to-me difference (beyond finish) with the 105 is what I have referred to as the "amorphous ramping-and-pinning" on the 105-and-below chainrings + the Ultegra rear derailleur's pulleys have ball bearings instead of bushings ... the former is easily "corrected" with a different chainring when the time comes OR if shifting to the larger chainring is too annoying ...
- the latter (ball bearings for the pulley wheels) is probably of dubious real value (IMO).
The compromises on the component levels below the fore mentioned is not great ... mostly weight & finish ...
So, it then becomes an economic and/or aesthetic choice.
Of course, even for the non-sponsored rider, the frame IS an aesthetic choice ...
And, if you feel that a "Road" frame is what you want, then ...
You just need to be aware that between ~1990 & now, THAT
mostly meant a frame whose largest usable tyre size was limited to 700x28 ...
And, from about 2001 & now, a 700x25 was often the largest usable tyre size that a CF fork could accommodate.
It seems like it as sometime in the 80s when dedicated CX frames were being made, BTW ...
I'll credit Pinarello, but it was possibly/probably someone else.
Well, THAT's
my observation based on what may be deemed to be faulty recollection of what has transpired over the decades!
FAT(
ter) tyres are in vogue for the
kool-kids, now, so many more CF forks will probably be able to accommodate 700x28 tyres, henceforth.
THAT's a long way of saying that a Hybrid frame is basically a Touring and/or CX frame with a (
pronounced) sloping Top Tube which is often sold with a dubious Suspension Fork & lesser components.
BTW. This was MY "real" Cyclocross frame (
c2001) which contributed the fork to my "Hybrid" frame ...
It has the same, comparatively "slack" 72º Head Tube angle ...
The longer chainstay that is found on a typical Hybrid frame than is found on a CX frame is the biggest difference in the geometry.
Yes, a more competitive rider of my height would probably have chosen CX frame which is
one-size-smaller.
BTW. The particular CX frame was designed to be built
without a front derailleur (
i.e., NO cable stops/guides on the frame for a front derailleur cable) & the pic was taken during a re-build when I was trying to see how tedious/realistic it would be for me to add one.