# Lynskey Sportive vs Lynskey R230



## dratip (Jul 13, 2014)

First I must state that, the Lynskey R230's description on its website "the ideal frame for the spirited enthusiast or club rider looking for a road frame that’s equally at home on a century and at the start line" exactly fits what I am looking for.

However, having watched various videos by Lynskey, I find it curious that Rouleur, an entry-level pro model, is considered to have a more aggressive geometry than R230 and is also stated to have the same geometry as Sportive. Another video even specifically mentions that Sportive has a more aggressive geometry than R230. 

This got me a bit confused because Sportive is classified in the endurance group and neither sport nor racing (pro). 

Sportive seems like a very flexible bike because it can also be a commuter and sportive bike. But, what is not clear is whether it is better for racing than R230. Basing from the videos mentioned above, if Sportive has a more aggressive geometry than R230, should it suggest that it is also better for racing?

If I take this further, it may even imply that Sportive is a better bike than R230 in any purpose, except for may be "comfort". So it may even fit the description "the ideal frame for the spirited enthusiast or club rider looking for a road frame that’s equally at home on a century and at the start line" better than R230?

Can someone who has tried both bikes please comment on this?

I generally seem that R230 is a far more popular bike, however.


----------



## Winn (Feb 15, 2013)

You aren't seriously considering buying a bike based on the websites description, or are you. Have ridden either bike? Ride the bikes and decide which one suits you. Geometry is just the first chapter in what makes a bike good for any purpose.


----------



## dratip (Jul 13, 2014)

I wish I could do better. There is not a place I can easily test ride the bikes around here.


----------



## Apexrider (Oct 10, 2011)

You're right that the Sportive has a more aggressive geometry than the R230. It has a slightly longer top tube and a shorter head tube. The biggest difference is that the Sportive has much longer chain stays to allow for mounting rack and fenders.

In my opinion the R230 is the better racing bike compared to the Sportive.


----------



## 73Chaz (May 18, 2014)

I recently purchased an R230. I've got mine set up to accommodate my less than ideal flexibility, however it could easily be set up to be quite racy. 

I find the handling and climbing ability of this bike exceptionally good, and it is quick off the mark as well. It has quite a tall headtube so is not a total "aero" bike, but for me it does everything that I want. 

It gets my vote.


----------



## Vitamin G (Aug 3, 2007)

I don't see how anyone can say the sportive is more aggressive than the R230. Looking at the geo charts, the R230 has a steeper head tube angle, a higher bottom bracket, and shorter chainstays. Those three things add up to a more racy feeling bike.

I have a Cooper (which has the same geo as the R230), and it is pretty racy feeling to me, coming from a Trek 2100 which had 1cm longer chainstays and .25cm more BB drop.


----------



## mrwirey (May 30, 2008)

I have a M/L R230, a L Sportive, and a M/L Rouleur. I have a difficult time differentiating between the three from a ride perspective. I purchased the Sportive in size L as the dimensions were more appropriate as I wanted to use it for touring. If I had to find fault with any or all of them it is that they have rather tall headtubes in comparison to their top tubes and the front ends are a bit flexy (when pushed) as compared to what I think we would all agree are pure road racing bikes (e.g., my 2013 Giant TCR Advanced and my 2014 TREK Madone 7). That said, if I had to pick one and only one of the three, I would keep the Rouleur as it meets all of my needs for a good Ti bike without any of the unnecessary frills. It is inexpensive, builds up nice, has excellent ride quality, and doesn't have any proprietary niggles, which would bother me over time. (NOTE: Keep in mind the stack height for an external headset, ala Chris King or Cane Creek, will add about 30mm to the length of the headtube.)
Very respectfully, Tim


----------



## LTRinENC (May 21, 2009)

Lynskey has been posting a series of videos on YouTube comparing their various frames. Here is the link to the comparison of the R230 vs the Sportive:

R230 vs the Sportive, Comparing Lynskey Performance Models - YouTube


----------



## dratip (Jul 13, 2014)

mrwirey said:


> I have a M/L R230, a L Sportive, and a M/L Rouleur. I have a difficult time differentiating between the three from a ride perspective. I purchased the Sportive in size L as the dimensions were more appropriate as I wanted to use it for touring. If I had to find fault with any or all of them it is that they have rather tall headtubes in comparison to their top tubes and the front ends are a bit flexy (when pushed) as compared to what I think we would all agree are pure road racing bikes (e.g., my 2013 Giant TCR Advanced and my 2014 TREK Madone 7). That said, if I had to pick one and only one of the three, I would keep the Rouleur as it meets all of my needs for a good Ti bike without any of the unnecessary frills. It is inexpensive, builds up nice, has excellent ride quality, and doesn't have any proprietary niggles, which would bother me over time. (NOTE: Keep in mind the stack height for an external headset, ala Chris King or Cane Creek, will add about 30mm to the length of the headtube.)
> Very respectfully, Tim


mrwirey, I find your comments very interesting. If you have time can you please elaborate what the unnecessary frills and proprietary niggles are? 

What is that comment about an external headset as well? Does that reply to all three frames you mentioned?


----------



## mrwirey (May 30, 2008)

dratip,

I have found BB30 (my Cannondale CAAD 10s), PF30 (my Litespeed T5), BB86 (my Giant TCR Advanced SL0), and even BB90 (my TREK Madone 7) standards tend to add a level of unnecessary complexity and maintenance issues, which do not add to the riding experience of the average rider...a category I fall into. Although these standards are supposed to (and probably do) increase stiffness I have simply not been able to confirm this through my riding experience (5,000+ miles and 254,000+ ft of climbing so far this year). I can say, however, they are mostly just 'different' with different not always being a good thing. Besides requiring new tools for installation and extraction; they have a tendency to require more maintenance than a standard external cup bottom bracket due primarly to creaking. 

Additionally, I am not a big fan of internal cable routing (Casati Laser, BMC SLX01, Giant TCR Advanced SL0, TREK Madone 7). Sure internal cables look slick, but they tend to overcomplicate the building and maintenance of a bicycle and since I do all my own maintenance this takes time away from other things I enjoy...like riding. Internal routing requires proprietary cable housing guides/stops, which I'll bet will be as rare as hen's teeth once the next model supercedes this 'newest/latest' model. I had to order a set of these for my Madone 7 as I purchased it as a frame and it came with Damone vice Madone housing stops. I ended up having to purchase an entire 'kit' with all the frame plugs/stops when all I needed was three housing stops. 

Finally, all the proprietary headset standards (Cannondale 1 1/8" top & 1 1/4" bottom; Giant 1 1/4" top and 1 1/2" bottom; and TREK at 1 1/8" top & 1 1/2" bottom), seatpost standards (TREK seatmast, Giant ovalized seatpost, BMC's internally wedged seatpost, etc.)...I could go on and on with seatpost clamp sizes etc. 

Bottom Line: A nice Ti frame is beautiful, will last forever, and can be built using a group, which does not require proprietary or odd shaped things. It will be kinetic art if you build with an eye towards beauty, ride like a dream if you choose the right components, and be infinitely upgradeable year after year should you choose to do so. 

I had my dream bike built for me last year. It is a custom Cysco Titanium with an Edge 2.0 fork, Campagnolo Chorus 11, and custom wheels from Fairwheel Bikes (Chris King hubs with H Plus Son Archetype rims). It has a Chris King oversize headset and threaded bottom bracket. No disc brakes. Integrated seat post with Ritchey WCS topper. Of course that was not my last bike as I like to chase technology as much as the next guy, but as other bikes will come and go from my collection; that bike will be with me forever.

My two cents...

Very respectfully, Tim


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

mrwirey said:


> dratip,
> 
> 
> I have found BB30 (my Cannondale CAAD 10s), PF30 (my Litespeed T5), BB86 (my Giant TCR Advanced SL0), and even BB90 (my TREK Madone 7) standards tend to add a level of unnecessary complexity and maintenance issues, which do not add to the riding experience of the average rider...a category I fall into. Although these standards are supposed to (and probably do) increase stiffness I have simply not been able to confirm this through my riding experience (5,000+ miles and 254,000+ ft of climbing so far this year Timmie Hunter | Cyclist on Strava). I can say, however, they are mostly just 'different' with different not always being a good thing. Besides requiring new tools for installation and extraction; they have a tendency to require more maintenance than a standard external cup bottom bracket due primarly to creaking.
> ...


great comments.

I also think for a bike to be a "keeper", it will need to be 1 1/8" standard headseat, standard round seatpost, threaded English or Italian bb, no internal cable routing, and no disc brakes.


----------



## Vitamin G (Aug 3, 2007)

Wish the Rouleur was available when I bought my Cooper. I find the super-short chainstays of the Cooper combined with the high bottom bracket make for a ride which is not as stable on the downhills as I would like.


----------



## dratip (Jul 13, 2014)

mrwirely, thank you very much for your detailed response. My interests in a Titanium frame stems from the fact that I am looking for a road bike frame that would possibly last with me for a decade for more. 

I am looking for a bike that fits my riding style as described above "the ideal frame for the spirited enthusiast or club rider looking for a road frame that’s equally at home on a century and at the start line". 

Initially, my mind was set on R230, but now I have been wondering whether Lynskey Rouleur would fit my needs better. I do not mind the $500 difference between the frames, but the Rouleur appears to be a slightly lighter frame. I am 39 now and currently weight 69 KG, and with my skinny legs, I do not consider myself to be a powerful rider that would actually feel any frame stiffness/flex at all.

However, the only lingering concern is that Rouleur has a longer chain stay by 2 cm. I am curious to find out what that really means both in theory and practice. I would think that a shorter chain stay would mean a snappier bike with better acceleration, so the Rouleur would be less snappy and accelerate slower than the R230? Do you think you can comment on this at all, or any other differences between R230 and Rouleur that you can notice?


----------



## mrwirey (May 30, 2008)

dratrip,

I purchased the Rouleur for the specific purpose of building a 1x10 (see Please post/show your 1x (8,9,10,11) speed drivetrain for the Road ).

The primary reason I wanted the longer chainstays was to lessen stress on the chain at extreme cross chaining angles. My secondary reason for wanting the longer stays was to have sufficient clearance to fit up to 700x28c tires, which is possible on my Sportive, but not possible with my R230. I typically run 700x25c tires (at 95-100 psi), which fit no problem on the Rouleur, but can be a tight fit under the rear brake caliper on the R230.

To your question with regard to the 2cm difference in chain stay length in theory and practice. In theory shorter chain stays should lend itself to quicker handling (more responsiveness), but in practice I do not feel the difference on the road. I can ride both bikes easily with no hands and both bikes are equally stable on fast descents (given identical wheels). Both bicycles are stable and hold their lines well in turns. 

Again, neither is as responsive as my high-end, cutting edge carbon bikes, but both the R230 and the Rouleur are a joy to ride and work exceptionally well in all, but full on racing situations (1-2% of my riding). In practice I like the longer chain stays for the ability to cross-chain without all the noise, as well as the flexibility to run larger tires with lower tire pressures to further enhance the ride quality given the poor chip-seal roads in my area. For the same reason I am a fan of running a smaller vice larger frame to get more seatpost extension and therefore compliance. I tend to run long stems so both my R230 and my Rouleur have 130mm stems. My Sportive, which is a size Large and set up for touring has a 57cm effective top tube and an appropriately shorter (120mm) stem.

I will be upgrading my Rouleur to a 1x11 setup (Ultegra 6800 cassette, mid-length 6800 rear derailleur, and 6800 right shifter) now that I’ve had time to ride it for a while. This is primarily so I can run 28t cog without changing cassettes and without sacrificing a gear in the middle of the cassette. It will also allow me the flexibility to run up to a 32t cog (with a cassette change) for prolonged, steep climbs.

Hope this is helpful.

Very respectfully, Tim

P.S. You can see how much clearance there is between the Rouleur's seat tube and the tire when running 700x28c tires in the picture . I have since switched to 700x25c tires at 95 lbs and I am quite happy.


----------



## mrwirey (May 30, 2008)

*Crappy Pictures of my R230 and my Sportive*

Crappy Pictures of my R230 and my Sportive. 

R230: The tire is a 700x23c Vittoria Rubino Pro III mounted on a wide (23mm) HED rim. You may be able to see how tight the clearance is between the seat tube and the tire in this picture. It is very close to the rear brake caliper (4-5mm) meaning running a 700x25c would be tight...no way on a 700x28c.

Sportive: Like the Rouleur, no problem running 700x25c tires...plenty of room. 700x28c can be tight depending on tire manufacturer and rim choice (wide or narrow).


Very respectfully, Tim


----------



## Special Eyes (Feb 2, 2011)

We finally have a Lynskey forum here. I'd check it out. BTW, I love my R330.


----------



## vagabondcyclist (Apr 2, 2011)

Keep in mind that no matter what Lynskey says about clearance, your limiting factor on tire size will be the brakes and the front fork. 

I have a Sportive with the Bontrager fork and SRAM Rival brakes. I'm running a HED Ardennes (23) rim with a 25c Conti GP4000 tire, and I'm not sure a 28c tire would fit.


----------



## mrwirey (May 30, 2008)

vagabondcyclist,

True you are and I probably should have stated that as well. My Sportive came with a TREK fork too. It also came with the largest 700x28c tires I have ever owned (Dia Compe Gran Compe Ene Ciclo Tires ). I removed the Dia Compes after one ride; not because they didn't clear the fork and the rear caliper/mount, but because I was uncomfortable with how closely they fit. I initally replaced those tires with Continental Gatorskin 700x28c tires (slightly narrower), but settled on (my favorite) Continental GP4000s in a 700x25c. I am running 23mm wide rims on my Sportive now (Velocity A23 with Ultegra 6800 hubs) and have no fit problems whatsover. I am very happy with the ride with the current set up (comfort and handling/responsiveness; not squishy when I stand up with my weight over the wheel and torque on the handlebars). 

The reason the Lynskey's have close tolerances is the desire to use standard vice long-reach calipers. I am fine with them designing the bikes to use short reach calipers to avoid the limited choices available with long-reach.

I will not be going back to 700x28c tires on any of my Lynskeys. 
Very respectfully, Tim


----------



## 73Chaz (May 18, 2014)

Just had a look at the clearances on my R230; I was under the impression that it would take 28c tyres. 

I have Schwalbe Durano 25cs on, there is a bit of clearance available under the rear brake calliper, limited space under the front though. This is with a Lynskey Sport carbon / alu fork. It looks like you could probably squeeze on some of the narrower / less tall 28s (maybe some Contis which came up smaller than specialised tyres on my last bike). However, I think I would be inclined to stick with 25s on this bike. 

Regards

Chaz


----------



## dratip (Jul 13, 2014)

Lynskey just posted a video explaining the difference between Sportive and Rouleur.

Sportive vs Rouleur, Comparing Lynskey Performance Models - YouTube


----------



## ridefast84 (Dec 22, 2012)

i got the ball rolling on trading in my pro29sl for a cooper and the more i think about it i really have no use for a bike with a long top tube and wheels that have a max psi of 45. I have a xc bike now and it lives on the road, i guess i like the multi use of a cx but every time i know i am going to hit the dirt i ride my mtb. 

so now i am leaning towards a sportive or a r230 but more towards a sportive. 

the last road bike i had was a 54cm trek madone with a 54cm tt and the sportive has a 53 and that will be just about perfect with a 90 or 100mm stem for me. Now I'm on a lemond wayzata with 25c and 28c tires, this bike is a lil to traditional geometry for me. 

i am looking for a bike that is just as comfy in the drops as on the hoods, i don't want to be racer stretched our or upright but able to handle 40mph descents and steady climbs over mountain passes. Also i don't want my bike holding me back when with my friends on their carbon race bikes.
Am i describing a sportive???

I am 66.25'' tall with slightly longer legs. I think i am a solid medium in the sportive

the cooper has funky geometry for me unless I'm missing something. 55cm tt ???? a lil long I'm thinking


----------



## Grifter (Oct 26, 2014)

mrwirey.

Nice looking bikes you've got there! 
I see you've got a Sportive in Large and
I was wondering how tall you are?
Ime exactly 6ft tall with 34in inseam (long legs)
And have shortish arms for my height. 
I am stuck between ML and a Large?!
Current bike is a 57 cm frame with virtual top tube
of 56cm and this fits me fine. 
Lynskey sportive ML is 55.5 cm and L is 57cm.
Which would you suggest?
Thanks.


----------

