DeaconDale said:
The last time I was on one was 5 or 6 years ago when I cycled with my wife to Santiago de Compostela, we tried to cycle over the Somport Pass on secondhand Raliegh touring bikes, suffice to say we pushed virtually all the way! This just shows that I dont have a clue! That is why I need an Idoits guide to bike buying and even how to ride up a mountain! So if you are still willing to put up with I would appreciate any help you can give me...........
Okay, here's more information than you probably want to know (and, others may have a different opinion, so factor in what makes sense to you) ...
For your intended ride, the main thing you need to be concerned with (beyond your own health & capabilities) is the bike's gearing ... and, the actual frame is less important than most people would like to think ...
Particularly, if you are only concerned with the ascent & the return ride will be by motorized conveyance ...
I may be in a miniscule camp that believes that the primary function of the frame is to hold the rider & the components together in what is hopefully an optimum orientation.
Some frames are definitely better than others.
The front end geometry is probably more important, IMO, than the frame material ...
The frame material is only a problem if the bike is truly, poorly designed and/or fabricated ... OTHERWISE, the frame selection is more for STYLE POINTS and WEIGHT considerations ... BOTH are valid and/or real reasons for choosing one frame over another.
Some very expensive frames have been designed & built with fancy-schmancy (non-steel) materials -- early attempts were often less than satisfactory (e.g., Titanium, was a very popular material about a dozen years ago but it was a really poor choice for a frame when my brother first mentioned that such a frame was being made because it just wasn't stiff enough) but most frames are generally pretty good, now.
Aluminum frames are lighter than steel ... some say they are harsh riding ... the way a bike rides depends mostly on the geometry, tire size & inflation pressure, & some rider skill (e.g., knowing how to absorb some road shocks with your legs).
Steel frames have been around forever. Despite what some people would like to think, for the engineering team which is designing a frame, the ride which a steel bike provides is still the benchmark against which the "new" frame is judged.
My experience (which may not be as universal as I am going to make it sound) is that a good carbon fiber fork mimics the ride of a good steel fork ...
And, further, a good carbon fiber frame will not ride any differently than a reasonably good steel frame based on comparing two frames which have exactly the same main triangle geometry (i.e., head tube angle & tube lengths).
The difference between a fairly good carbon fiber frame and a reasonably good steel frame is the weight ... the carbon fiber ROAD frame will only weigh about 1 kg (give-or-take ... my vintage CF frame must weigh closer to 1.5 kg) whereas a steel frame will probably weigh close to 2X-to-2.5X as much.
So, after considering the geometry & crafstmanship, the frame is mostly for style points ...
And, it comes down to the components & the wheels ...
IMO, nothing shifts better than Campagnolo shifters ... others have disagreed.
For climbing, a traditional 36 spoke wheel is probably amongst the better choices unless you are being sponsored by someone who is paying for you to use their wheels (which you may manage to have happen!).
A bike like the Bianchi Dolomiti has what is now euphemistically referred to as a "compact" crank ... in the past, it was given the pejorative label of an "Alpine" crank. It's the crank size I used exclusively for years AND advocated others should consider until it became the 'in' crank for people to put on their bikes ...
With a "compact" crankset a 34t inner chainring is common and you can usually get by with having a 27t-to-29t largest cog ... a cog larger than 30t with a compact crankset will result in gearing where you are probably better off walking the bike.
BTW. The attached pic is my early-90s TREK frame which I completely re-worked for the singular purpose of riding UP mountain roads ...
The frame was respaced DOWN to 120mm.
The chainring is a 32t & the Freewheel is a 22t. That equates to a 39t with a about a 27t cog (closer to 26.825) ... my "normal" bailout cog is a 32t (when it is almost better to be walking!) ... going downhill is via coasting and some really fast pedaling (without much speed) on the few, true flat sections.