On 18 Aug 2005 07:46:38 -0700, "Qui si parla Campagnolo"
<
[email protected]> wrote:
>i know. Another phenomenom is this fascination with the components,
>rather than the 'heart' of the bicycle, the frameset. People will
>upgrade components at the expense of the frame. My suggestion is
>always, highest percentage into the frame, then the saddle, maybe
>brakes, wheels. The last should be the shifters or ders or crank. More
>for the frame even if it means less for the components. It's backwards
>today.
>
>I would rather ride my Merckx with shimano Sora than a crappy frame
>with Record.
I would like to posit that today, the difference between a cheap and
mid-range frame is less than it was 30 years ago, and the difference
between mid-range and high-end very much less. Simple quality control --
from the steel mill (or aluminum smelter) through the tube drawer to the
welder -- ensures that. In other words, you can get a frame that "rides
well" for not all that much money -- hell, you yourself in this very
thread were advocating building a $750 Ti frame from Gunnar into a $2500
bike, which is only about a third of total cost. I would submit that if
your criteria are more cost and ride characteristics than weight, you can
probably get a frame that rides that well for 300-400 as well, on which
you can safely hang Ultegra, Centaur, or even Chorus groups that cost more
than the frame without -- IMO -- being too unbalanced.
I think that as long as you don't *ignore* the frame entirely in favour of
poser value (which is what this mostly comes down to, whether you're
posing towards your friends with your spiffy Record or to yourself), you
should be able to find something in almost any reasonable price class that
will make a good bike.
Jasper
