Litespeed Ti vs. Trek OCLV (or other all-carbon frame)

[ryanspeer]

At some point in the next year I'd love to upgrade my current frame (aluminum frame, carbon seat stays) to one of the two frames above. I've always been taken with both and know that Ti and carbon both have their own respective benefits, but have any of you had noteworthy saddle-time in BOTH bikes in the sense that you can give a good comparison between the two?

I ultimately want a frame that's still nice and stiff for sprinting and climbing, but is also supple and absorbs a healthy amount of road vibration.

Opinions between the two? I personally have yet to ride either.

 

[rocko]

At some point in the next year I'd love to upgrade my current frame (aluminum frame, carbon seat stays) to one of the two frames above. I've always been taken with both and know that Ti and carbon both have their own respective benefits, but have any of you had noteworthy saddle-time in BOTH bikes in the sense that you can give a good comparison between the two?

I ultimately want a frame that's still nice and stiff for sprinting and climbing, but is also supple and absorbs a healthy amount of road vibration.

Opinions between the two? I personally have yet to ride either.

Sorry not to give an opinion on either two but I recently had to decide between OCLV, Specialized Tarmac and Scott CR1 Pro. I chose the CR1 Pro and it is great. It is lighter than other two and rides brilliantly. Climbs superbly, sprints as it is stiff as well as light and comfy as it seems to absorb loads of road shock due to arrangement of carbon fibres. I'd throughly recommend.

 

[ebola]

At some point in the next year I'd love to upgrade my current frame (aluminum frame, carbon seat stays) to one of the two frames above. I've always been taken with both and know that Ti and carbon both have their own respective benefits, but have any of you had noteworthy saddle-time in BOTH bikes in the sense that you can give a good comparison between the two?

I ultimately want a frame that's still nice and stiff for sprinting and climbing, but is also supple and absorbs a healthy amount of road vibration.

Opinions between the two? I personally have yet to ride either.

I'm riding a scott cr1 pro which is great.. recently I breifly test rode a litespeed (ghisallo) - just a few of laps around the block.. and i have to say I was seriously impressed by it.

I hope it's just 'grass is greener' syndrome, but i'm now finding myself lusting after Ti.
Most of my rides are 45-90mins (lunchhour+ extended commutes), only doing >2hours in a single ride about once a week, so i'm probably more impressed by performance on paper than comfort for extended rides.
You'll probably get more meaningfull replies from others who've spent more time on them both..

 

[ryanspeer]

Thanks for the replies (both of you). I guess it's a good/bad thing that you were "seriously impressed" by it after riding it around the block a bit. Good in the sense that maybe Ti is everything they say and more, but bad in the sense that it only makes me want one more.

Rocko, why exactly didn't you choose the OCLV? How much heavier was it? Did you like or dislike the ride quality? Was there a large price difference or were they somewhat comperable?

Anybody else with experience on both of them would be appreciated.

 

[ebola]

Sorry not to give an opinion on either two but I recently had to decide between OCLV, Specialized Tarmac and Scott CR1 Pro. I chose the CR1 Pro and it is great. It is lighter than other two and rides brilliantly. Climbs superbly, sprints as it is stiff as well as light and comfy as it seems to absorb loads of road shock due to arrangement of carbon fibres. I'd throughly recommend.

yup i guess given that you can get a cr1 pro for less than the ghisallo frame, it's a damn good deal.. dont take me being 'seriously impressed' with the ghisallo as a point against the cr1; i'd thouroughly recomend it too any time i look at other carbon frames, i just keep finding out good things about the cr1. It's visually distinctive weave seems to be appearing elsewhere on other bikes, e.g. orbea opal recently.
I have no 'post-purchase-remorse' with the thing, which is rare for me.

 

[lks]

At some point in the next year I'd love to upgrade my current frame (aluminum frame, carbon seat stays) to one of the two frames above. I've always been taken with both and know that Ti and carbon both have their own respective benefits, but have any of you had noteworthy saddle-time in BOTH bikes in the sense that you can give a good comparison between the two?

I ultimately want a frame that's still nice and stiff for sprinting and climbing, but is also supple and absorbs a healthy amount of road vibration.

Opinions between the two? I personally have yet to ride either.

I have built up two Trek 5900s and one of the very first Madone frameset. All with top Ksyriums and michelins. My last Madone ride was 100 miles and then I took everything off of it and put it on a new Fondriest TF1 (Top Carbon) frameset for an apples and apples comparison. The Fondriest was superior in every way, and Trek builds conservative geometry. Oh, I only weigh 140lbs and ride very bad roads. If cost is no object, then pre-impregnated carbon fiber construction is the best. Most of the differences in your top carbon bikes,Trek included, is how they handle do to different geometries. Non are right or wrong, some are just quicker or slower handling. Professional road testers usually cover this very well. Some of their tests have said, "a little twitchy at speed". My priority is the best tracking/slower handling in a 40mph+ club pace line descent. I would choose from framesets that had the geometry I wanted. That would still leave you with a lot of tough decisions.

 

[JoelH]

I have a Trek 5200 frame for about a year and i rate them. it is a OCLV 120 frame. Great ride, very stable handling at speed.. evidently the handling is considered "all-day" but i would not call it slow either. For me it is great.

Quite a stiff frame that rides well, in context i am 85Kg. and i have yet to experience flex when climbing or sprinting. Not dead light.. but given i am not a lightweight anyway that was not my first concern.. stiffness was. it is still plenty light though. Also the Trek warranty is quite good.. and for carbon i think this is important... given a lot of carbon frames (regardless of manufacturer) do suffer from unbonding at the BB or the dropouts... it is more common than is talked about.

I looked at a few different bikes before settling on the trek, rode the Scott.. which is another great bike.. i was just not a fan of the semi compact geometery it has.

I do have mates who have had problems with Litespeed Ti frames, ie cracking around head tube.. (vortex) but i understand that has been resolved in the latest models with a re-design of the head set area.

I do recomend Trek, but think really it comes to how the ride works for your style and type of racing/riding you do. usual story ;-)