# Motobecane Ti cyclo cross update



## bikesdirect (Sep 9, 2006)

Hi

Since I have gotten several questions about when, what, how much after mentioning in a thread that there would be a Motobecane Ti CX bike - here is the update with pictures

Fantom Cross Team Ti is on the way and will be in about early to mid September; if as booked. Sample is being reviewed by a magazine now and will be featured in August with MSRP of $3995. I of course think this is the nicest and best CX bike under $4000 anywhere. {we will see what others say - but Moto Ti frames so far are being described as 'stunning'. There will be at least 6 Moto Ti tests by assorted mags by Dec - we will see if they all say the frame is stunning as MBA did.} 

Myself I think Ti is the best exotic material for CX or mountain bikes - as CF has those questions about what to do after you fall on a rock/tree/another bike/etc. I would love to hear the ideas of others on that point - CF vs Ti for CX and ATB design.

This bike will be sold by us at half off MSRP or even lower. Early booking will be at a bigger discount.

Based on requests and comments on forums:
1 - Ultegra level so parts are not too much to replace
2 - Bullet Proof wheels
3 - disc tabs on fork and frame
4 - eyelets and a rr rack braze on

based on my own ideas
Bi Oval DT for stiff responsive frame with S stays AND custom TT so that underside is totally flat for caring bike - Top of TT is a semi point with cables run alone top. This frame is comfortable and quick at the same time - and of course will not the durability of Ti. This is a true CX frame so no cables on DT like some brands do on 'cyclo cross'. {I understand that purists do not need or want eyelets or disc tabs -- but they only make the bike illegal to race if disc are mounted.} 

We have 3 CX bikes now and are adding 6 more; so we are serious about cyclo cross. The Fantom Cross Team Ti is the highest level one at this time [ but we may add a ubber light version for next year]

excuse my poor photoshop skills please:




























of course, this might be better placed in Moto forum; and mods may move; but I think new products are great for general discussion. And I think the Ti vs CF question for off road use is always up for discussion.


----------



## Nashua (Aug 1, 2007)

*sram?*

will any of the new offerings come spec'ed with sram?


----------



## bikesdirect (Sep 9, 2006)

Nashua said:


> will any of the new offerings come spec'ed with sram?


Not at this time
But I am seeing more Sram on XC bikes
Is there a practicual reason why Sram would be better on CX bikes than Shimano

{btw - I like both - but Shimano still sells quicker}


----------



## d2p (Jul 29, 2006)

I prefer to support businesses that promote the sport. Do you sponsor any events or riders?


----------



## FatTireFred (Jan 31, 2005)

unused disc mounts? yuk


----------



## bikesdirect (Sep 9, 2006)

d2p said:


> I prefer to support businesses that promote the sport. Do you sponsor any events or riders?


YES

but I do not want anyone to buy our bikes due to that; I prefer customers who mare buying because they know we have the best value


----------



## bikesdirect (Sep 9, 2006)

FatTireFred said:


> unused disc mounts? yuk


Very interesting

This bike was heavily researched with consumers
A bit over 10% wanted a 'pure' CX bike - no eyelets - no disc tabs
About 25% just did not care weather it had disc tabs [many of those did want eyelets]

WAY OVER 50% of the riders we communicated with wanted both disc tabs and eyelets

I think this is due to
1 - cyclo cross bikes are seen as cycles that can be used for many functions
2 - Ti has an appeal not only due to weight and ride; but also durability. Many commented that they would expect a Ti frame to last basicly forever; so one might CX race for a year; commuter another few years; do a long citizen race [like MS150] and even do light touring or weekend training rides.

Some people like the options:

It took me a year to convince one major brand to add eyelets on CX bikes; due to their team saying no, no, no - we don't need them. Then once the eyelets went on the sales increased.

All that said; when we do a sub 17 lb CX TEAM SL Ti - it will have no disc tabs or eyelets - race bike for those that want race bike only


----------



## FatTireFred (Jan 31, 2005)

bikesdirect said:


> Very interesting
> 
> This bike was heavily researched with consumers
> A bit over 10% wanted a 'pure' CX bike - no eyelets - no disc tabs
> ...




whatever... but if you do a disc bike/frame, do NOT put canti posts on it


----------



## SleeveleSS (Jun 3, 2007)

FatTireFred said:


> whatever... but if you do a disc bike/frame, do NOT put canti posts on it


Why the attitude?


----------



## Nashua (Aug 1, 2007)

*sram*



bikesdirect said:


> Not at this time
> But I am seeing more Sram on XC bikes
> Is there a practicual reason why Sram would be better on CX bikes than Shimano
> 
> {btw - I like both - but Shimano still sells quicker}


Only reason is I have sram on my road bike and would like the same shifting on my cross. A sram grouppo will be the deciding factor on which bike I buy


----------



## threesportsinone (Mar 27, 2007)

I have lots of things to say but I'll stick to questions. Will you offer it as a frame/frameset only?


----------



## SleeveleSS (Jun 3, 2007)

threesportsinone said:


> I have lots of things to say but I'll stick to questions.


Why hold back? This is a forum.


----------



## threesportsinone (Mar 27, 2007)

> Why hold back? This is a forum.


No, its a cyclocross forum, so I'll stick to to topic.


----------



## seahuston (Sep 2, 2005)

threesportsinone said:


> No, its a cyclocross forum, so I'll stick to to topic.


Exactly the reason I pretty much only read the cyclocross forum, a great sum-up. 

To the topic- I think the bike looks pretty good. Seems like it is trying to appeal to two markets, commuter-disc tabs and rack mounts but also racey-ti frame, carbon fork. I think that a ti frame begs for a true race build, I would much rather pick my spec but I think thats the nature of my cross bike buying. 
Wait i lost my train of thought...
Nice bike, price seems reasonable but would like to see it as a frameset, maybe it that set up without commuter options.
Sram for cross bikes? I dont know but it has really caught on, rival is relativly inexpensive and would be cool next year with the carbon levers. Can't vouch for the gunk free shifting but its marketed well. I think Sram looks more race oriented but shimano does work ohh so well. (rambling again, i'm done


----------



## FatTireFred (Jan 31, 2005)

seahuston said:


> Exactly the reason I pretty much only read the cyclocross forum, a great sum-up.
> 
> To the topic- I think the bike looks pretty good. Seems like it is trying to appeal to two markets, commuter-disc tabs and rack mounts but also racey-ti frame, carbon fork. I think that a ti frame begs for a true race build, I would much rather pick my spec but I think thats the nature of my cross bike buying.
> Wait i lost my train of thought...
> ...




yup, it seems it is trying to be all... 2k for a commuter? can't really see it. 4k for a commuter? no way. a true CX race frame won't have "eyelets and a rr rack braze on". and at these prices I would expect a better rear brake cable hanger (braze on), one that avoid that convoluted routing


----------



## SleeveleSS (Jun 3, 2007)

FatTireFred said:


> yup, it seems it is trying to be all... 2k for a commuter? can't really see it. 4k for a commuter? no way. a true CX race frame won't have "eyelets and a rr rack braze on". and at these prices I would expect a better rear brake cable hanger (braze on), one that avoid that convoluted routing


Well, it won't be 4k, so that seems like a moot point. It might not be a "true" cx frame, but stuff like the eyelets and rack option don't really affect it's race ability, it's just not as "clean." It does leave the end user with many more options, which I don't see as a bad thing.


----------



## FatTireFred (Jan 31, 2005)

SleeveleSS said:


> Well, it won't be 4k, so that seems like a moot point. It might not be a "true" cx frame, but stuff like the eyelets and rack option don't really affect it's race ability, it's just not as "clean." It does leave the end user with many more options, which I don't see as a bad thing.




dude wrote that msrp = 4k... that's the perceived value and that's what he's comparing it to ("I of course think this is the nicest and best CX bike under $4000 anywhere"). I know it's discounted to 2k, I can read. for that much people buying a pure race machine aren't gonna want unnec bits. he's the one that wrote that it is a "true" cx frame: 
"based on my own ideas
Bi Oval DT for stiff responsive frame with S stays AND custom TT so that underside is totally flat for caring bike - Top of TT is a semi point with cables run alone top. This frame is comfortable and quick at the same time - and of course will not the durability of Ti. *This is a true CX frame* so no cables on DT like some brands do on 'cyclo cross'. {I understand that purists do not need or want eyelets or disc tabs -- but they only make the bike illegal to race if disc are mounted.}"


----------



## SleeveleSS (Jun 3, 2007)

FatTireFred said:


> dude wrote that msrp = 4k... that's the perceived value and that's what he's comparing it to ("I of course think this is the nicest and best CX bike under $4000 anywhere"). I know it's discounted to 2k, I can read. for that much people buying a pure race machine aren't gonna want unnec bits. he's the one that wrote that it is a "true" cx frame:
> "based on my own ideas
> Bi Oval DT for stiff responsive frame with S stays AND custom TT so that underside is totally flat for caring bike - Top of TT is a semi point with cables run alone top. This frame is comfortable and quick at the same time - and of course will not the durability of Ti. *This is a true CX frame* so no cables on DT like some brands do on 'cyclo cross'. {I understand that purists do not need or want eyelets or disc tabs -- but they only make the bike illegal to race if disc are mounted.}"


I agree that he is stupid for writing MSRP of 4k. No one is going to sell it for 4k, it's going to be sold for 2k. He shouldn't have mentioned 4k, and neither should you, because it's a completely arbitrary number. The MSRP he puts on his site for all his bikes is bs. It might be what comparable bikes sell for, but it is most certainly not MSRP.

By "true cx machine" I took him to mean this wasn't just a road bike with wider tire clearance. Other cross specific needs were taken into consideration. I don't think he means this is a "pure race machine" as you put it. I guess you two just have different ideas of what this bike is supposed to be. 

I guess if you don't like it you won't be buying it, which I'm sure everyone is fine with, including bikesdirect. There's no reason to be "snarky."


----------



## flanman (Jul 7, 2006)

Looks like a decent bike. The seat post mount cable hanger is a killer for me though.


----------



## SleeveleSS (Jun 3, 2007)

flanman said:


> Looks like a decent bike. The seat post mount cable hanger is a killer for me though.


Why's that? I'm not aware of the inherent advantages or disadvantages of such a system. How does it compare to the traditional method?


----------



## TACSTS (Feb 4, 2004)

Looks nice I think. 

I agree though about seatpost cable hangers. Frame mounted rear brake housing stop is a better arrangement and cleaner. 

Deal-breaker for me is the integrated headset. Solution to a problem that just wasn't there.


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

bikesdirect said:


> Myself I think Ti is the best exotic material for CX or mountain bikes - as CF has those questions about what to do after you fall on a rock/tree/another bike/etc. I would love to hear the ideas of others on that point - CF vs Ti for CX and ATB design.


I think Ti has its strengths and weaknesses. One weakness is that it is not hard to find scary pictures of cracked welds and sheared tubes. That is a question that weighs on me when riding a Ti bike hard, especially if I have no real knowledge of the outfit that is doing the welding (but some uninspiring suspicions).

Speaking of weighing, how much do these frames weigh? I have worked with frames ranging from Chinese jobs to Sevens. In weight and ride quality they compare with everything from straight guage steel to CF. We need to know more about your frame before we start discussing it relative to truly comparable frames. If it is as heavy as steel, as crack prone as Al, as expensive as CF. . . 

Also, there is nothing inherently superior about the way Ti rides. Ride quality is acheived through design, not material. Of course, the placebo factor is huge, especially with "rare" and/or expensive items.



bikesdirect said:


> . . .disc tabs on fork and frame
> . . .eyelets and a rr rack braze on
> . . .custom TT so that underside is totally flat for caring bike - Top of TT is a semi point with cables run alone top.
> . . .no cables on DT like some brands do on 'cyclo cross'.


None of these features appeal to me, they all add weight and they all add cost.


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

SleeveleSS said:


> Why's that? I'm not aware of the inherent advantages or disadvantages of such a system. How does it compare to the traditional method?


Road RDs are bottom pull, so TT routing necessitates a kludge.

Edit: Make that road FDs, not Rds.


----------



## SleeveleSS (Jun 3, 2007)

Ah, my gf has the Al. version, so I'll have to take a look at that.


----------



## flanman (Jul 7, 2006)

SleeveleSS said:


> Why's that? I'm not aware of the inherent advantages or disadvantages of such a system. How does it compare to the traditional method?


Tricky to adjust, tends to add play and flex, extra friction, cable angle is off. Looks ugly.


----------



## TheDon (Feb 3, 2006)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> Road RDs are bottom pull, so TT routing necessitates a kludge.


Don't you mean Front Derailleur and not Rear Derailleur?


----------



## SleeveleSS (Jun 3, 2007)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> I think Ti has its strengths and weaknesses. One weakness is that it is not hard to find scary pictures of cracked welds and sheared tubes. That is a question that weighs on me when riding a Ti bike hard, especially if I have no real knowledge of the outfit that is doing the welding (but some uninspiring suspicions).
> 
> Speaking of weighing, how much do these frames weigh? I have worked with frames ranging from Chinese jobs to Sevens. In weight and ride quality they compare with everything from straight guage steel to CF. We need to know more about your frame before we start discussing it relative to truly comparable frames. If it is as heavy as steel, as crack prone as Al, as expensive as CF. . .
> 
> ...


I don't see nearly as many pictures of cracked or sheared Ti (especially 3/2.5 as compared to 6/4) as I do CF, but that doesn't stop it from being the flavor of the day. I agree about needing more info on the frame. Personally I would rather have nice steel than budget Ti, but we can't really comment on the frame quality yet. I don't think BD is going to be selling bikes that are going to break apart while riding. Their stuff might not be flashy or fancy, but from my personal dealings with BD bikes, they have been very functional. 

As far as the features listed not appealing to you, again, that is you, and I doubt you are very representative of their target market. If you want the pure race frame for its lighter weight and no frills, I think he mentioned something like that down the line. All you have to do is wait, or pay more to get it from someone else now.


----------



## bikesdirect (Sep 9, 2006)

SleeveleSS said:


> I agree that he is stupid for writing MSRP of 4k. No one is going to sell it for 4k, it's going to be sold for 2k. He shouldn't have mentioned 4k, and neither should you, because it's a completely arbitrary number. The MSRP he puts on his site for all his bikes is bs. It might be what comparable bikes sell for, but it is most certainly not MSRP.
> 
> By "true cx machine" I took him to mean this wasn't just a road bike with wider tire clearance. Other cross specific needs were taken into consideration. I don't think he means this is a "pure race machine" as you put it. I guess you two just have different ideas of what this bike is supposed to be.
> 
> I guess if you don't like it you won't be buying it, which I'm sure everyone is fine with, including bikesdirect. There's no reason to be "snarky."


Thanks for your posts and interest

I think I should answer the MSRP question; one more time
If we put and MSRP on a bike like this of say $1795, what magazine would test it?
MBA just tested Fly Team Ti with MSRP of like $4295 -- they like many things about it -- they disliked some things about it. They thought the price was fine [at $4295 it is low compared to a Litespeed] We are selling Fly TeamTi right now at $1995, if that was MSRP then MountainBikeAction would never test it! At least 6 Ti Motobecanes will be tested this year; none would be if the MSRP is so low it made other brands look insanely priced.

Sites like http://www.roadbikebuyersguide.com/ will not list our bikes if our suggested retail is half what other brands are. I think you can see why.

Plus consumers need a basis of comparation.
The fact is a Fantom Cross Team Ti does not compare to CX bikes that are $1795 in bike shops. A Fantom Cross Pro compares to CX bikes that are $1800 to $2100 {but we sell it for $995} --- 

PLUS component makers like Ritchey, Shimano, FSA etc do not want to see $700 wheels or $400 cranks, or $250 shifters on bikes with sub $1000 MSRP. Heck add up the MSRP of just the Ritchey on an LSL or Fantom Cross Pro and you will understand the issue.

MSRP is required
MSPR needs to be something the market place can live with; including magazines, media, consumers, and component makers.

When we produce a full racing only CX bike with the top FSA XC crank; DuraAce Shifters, der, and cassette; $1000 set of wheels; Ti frame with full carbon fork; and complete WCS cockpit -- what should the MSRP of this bike be? What sub 17 lb CX bike will it compare to? Who would review it in the media? How can we properly market it?

The issue of MSRP is not easy for everyone to understand; especially without detailed knowledge of the insides of the bike industry. Our customers seem to like having MSRP and they wish all brands would post them {many do - but a few do not}. 

I hope this clears this up a little


----------



## bikesdirect (Sep 9, 2006)

threesportsinone said:


> I have lots of things to say but I'll stick to questions. Will you offer it as a frame/frameset only?



depends on demand
we are getting a lot of requests on Ti framesets
min price on frame/fork/headset would be $995 [a super bargin compared to other Ti]


----------



## bikesdirect (Sep 9, 2006)

SleeveleSS said:


> . I don't think BD is going to be selling bikes that are going to break apart while riding. Their stuff might not be flashy or fancy, but from my personal dealings with BD bikes, they have been very functional.
> 
> As far as the features listed not appealing to you, again, that is you, and I doubt you are very representative of their target market. If you want the pure race frame for its lighter weight and no frills, I think he mentioned something like that down the line. All you have to do is wait, or pay more to get it from someone else now.



That is for sure; I will never risk frame failures to save on cost!

When we added CF bikes we went to the most expensive frame builder in Asia; not the cheapest. We coud have used a very cheap frame maker in China as many do; but we are using the best and most expensive builder in Taiwan.

With the Ti line we coud have used a very cheap frame maker in China as many do; but we are using the best and most expensive builder in Taiwan.

You may see a pattern here; we do not save $20 to $200 on a frame in order to cut prices. We find that money in the distribution channel; not in lower specs.

The Fantom Cross Team Ti can be legally raced and then used at other times for other things. Most customers we polled wanted versitility; for those that want a single use bike; I think the race only version will be the lightest, quickest, and most durable high ticket XC bike made. It just will not be out first.

Response so far indicates the Fantom Cross Team Ti will sell out before we get them in. Like many of our upper end bikes do.

thanks for your support


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

TheDon said:


> Don't you mean Front Derailleur and not Rear Derailleur?


Oops. Yes.


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

SleeveleSS said:


> As far as the features listed not appealing to you, again, that is you, and I doubt you are very representative of their target market. If you want the pure race frame for its lighter weight and no frills, I think he mentioned something like that down the line. All you have to do is wait, or pay more to get it from someone else now.


It is my opinion, isn't that what bikesdirect was soliciting here?

This is being represented as a "true CX frame". It is not. It is a frame that can be raced, but also one that has been diluted by several non-CX relevant add-ons and the sensibilities of commuters, trail riders, recreational roadies etc. Disc tabs and eyelets are not "frills" on a race bike any more so than a trailer hitch is a "frill" on a sports car.

There is an established market for this kind of frame. But this frame is not competing with race-bred CF or Scandium frames. It is competing with the Salsa La Cruz, the Soma Double Cross Disc and perhaps the Salsa Las Cruces which seems to have floundered trying to appeal to the same list of demands.

Also, is this a 135mm spaced frame or another 130mm disc frame with a relatively limited list of compatible hubs/wheelsets?


----------



## beaker (Feb 2, 2005)

TACSTS said:


> Looks nice I think.
> 
> I agree though about seatpost cable hangers. Frame mounted rear brake housing stop is a better arrangement and cleaner.
> 
> Deal-breaker for me is the integrated headset. Solution to a problem that just wasn't there.


I could live with the cable hanger, but I'm with you on the integrated headset. At the $995 proposed frame/fork/headset price, I'm there, but the integrated headset is kind of a deal killer for me. I know they've been around for a while now, but I still wonder about long term durability vs. standard headset.


----------



## SleeveleSS (Jun 3, 2007)

bikesdirect said:


> Thanks for your posts and interest
> 
> I think I should answer the MSRP question; one more time
> If we put and MSRP on a bike like this of say $1795, what magazine would test it?
> ...


This makes a good point for why you list MSRP as you do, but it still doesn't say anything about the industry. If they are willing to run a bike in their mag on or their site that undercuts it's competitors by half, making up a random MSRP that it will never be sold for doesn't help anyone. It may be what you have to do, it may not, but it's still pretty ridiculous. For what always has seemed to me to be one of the most straightforward and honest bike companies around, it strikes me as deceptive marketing. When people go on bikesdirect.com, they are not getting it for half of what somewhere else sells it for, though they might think that by your site. 
Anyway, thanks for the detailed explanation. Nice to be able to get such quick responses direct from the man himself.


----------



## SleeveleSS (Jun 3, 2007)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> It is my opinion, isn't that what bikesdirect was soliciting here?
> 
> This is being represented as a "true CX frame". It is not. It is a frame that can be raced, but also one that has been diluted by several non-CX relevant add-ons and the sensibilities of commuters, trail riders, recreational roadies etc. Disc tabs and eyelets are not "frills" on a race bike any more so than a trailer hitch is a "frill" on a sports car.
> 
> ...


I didn't mean to apply your opinion wasn't valid at all, just that while I understand where you're coming from, your opinion is probably not representative of his potential buyers. I'm sorry if I came off poorly. 

I'd like to use your same analogy, which is very creative by the way, I definitely laughed reading it (imagine an Enzo with a hitch ). How much would that trailer hitch (without a trailer of course) slow you down in the quarter mile? How about the skidpad? How about a race? We're not talking about the unused disk mounts or rack mounts really affecting anything except how "hardcore" you look at a race. You're right that it may not be a "true CX frame" how you define it, but practically you aren't going to be any slower on it. You can commute during the week, then take that rack off and have a nice race rig. Or you can never commute and still have a nice race rig. 

Basically what he has done is take his aluminum cross bike and make it out of Ti. It seems to have the all the same features as the Al version I have seen. It probably sold well, and I know my gf loves hers. She uses it to ride with me for fun as well as commuting. She's thinking about some cross races, and may or may not do that. She has never used her disc tabs, and probably never will, but those holes have never bothered her or caused any problems. 

I agree with the rest about the integrated heaset, and the explanation about the rear cable hanger makes sense. Perhaps with this new frame that is something Mike could address. Those things could actually matter for performance.


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

The extra weight of adding disc tabs, rack eyelets, rack mounts on the stays, two or more additional cable stops, a pulley on the ST and necessitating the extra cable housing required to route from the TT to the ST and SS might not be much. Then again it might be -- thats a lot of stuff! 

Adding a few grams or even a couple pounds probably won't slow you down measurably either, but in the context of bikes and especially race bikes, people take these things into account. If I am going to take the attitude that I am only going to worry about things that have a measurable impact on race results, paying a premium for a Ti frame is off the table anyway. A steel frame will last just as long, cost half as much and won't have a measurable impact on speed compared to Ti.

I can put up with rack mounts on my Soma because its a $300 frame. For $1000 I am not going to be so willing to compromise.


----------



## The Sundance Kid (Oct 2, 2007)

I couldn't ride a bike called the "fantom". Did someone have "phantom" copyrighted?


----------



## bikesdirect (Sep 9, 2006)

flanman said:


> Looks like a decent bike. The seat post mount cable hanger is a killer for me though.


Thanks
this is good to know
and I am going to try and change it on the first run
something more like Fantom Cross Pro


----------



## flanman (Jul 7, 2006)

bikesdirect said:


> Thanks
> this is good to know
> and I am going to try and change it on the first run
> something more like Fantom Cross Pro


That said. I think Sven Nys has one on his Colnago. He might not use his brakes much though.


----------



## supermex (Aug 12, 2006)

Looks like a sweet bike. But I really can't believe that this thread has so much *****ing about, disc tabs and eyelets. I guess if you're really a fast rider those things won't bother you. Of course your Motobecane with eyelets won't look "full race" when it's on top of your car.


----------



## FondriestFan (May 19, 2005)

No kidding. People here whine about everything. Usually it's the ones who have never even seen a podium, much less stepped on one.

Honestly, that bike looks sweet. And yep, I would race it and I would use it as a commuter or a winter bike. For about $2k, I'm all over it.

Mike, don't go changing all sorts of stuff on it just because a few malcontents cry about it.

Nice deal on the vuelta wheels, BTW. Mine came today.


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

FondriestFan said:


> No kidding. People here whine about everything. Usually it's the ones who have never even seen a podium, much less stepped on one.
> 
> Honestly, that bike looks sweet. And yep, I would race it and I would use it as a commuter or a winter bike. For about $2k, I'm all over it.
> 
> ...


Motobecane: first choice of smack talkers with low standards :thumbsup:

What kind of results does one have to acheive before they are allowed to balk at paying $2000 for either a ridiculously over-priced commuter or a ridiculously schizophrenic excuse for a race bike?

These "features" are find for poor slobs on Somas (like me), but for $2000. .


----------



## vanjr (Sep 15, 2005)

but wouldn't a soma double cross with identical components be about or at least almost 2K???


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

vanjr said:


> but wouldn't a soma double cross with identical components be about or at least almost 2K???


Thats an interesting question. The Ultegra level Al Fantom CX Pro goes for $997. The Ultegra level Fantom CX Team Ti will sell for $2000. The Ti frameset will sell for $995 minimum. So, when you buy the Team Ti you are paying the equivalent cost for a complete CX Pro bike and an additional Team Ti frameset. At least they are nice enough to spare you a trip to the recycling center with the Al frame (I am assuming that some one already throwing their money away would simply throw the frame away).

So based on that buying strategy, a Soma Double Cross with the exact same components would cost the difference between the Team Ti frameset and the DC frameset, which is about $500 less (plus the cost of a trip to the recycling center, of course.)


----------



## vanjr (Sep 15, 2005)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> Thats an interesting question. The Ultegra level Al Fantom CX Pro goes for $997. The Ultegra level Fantom CX Team Ti will sell for $2000. The Ti frameset will sell for $995 minimum. So, when you buy the Team Ti you are paying the equivalent cost for a complete CX Pro bike and an additional Team Ti frameset. At least they are nice enough to spare you a trip to the recycling center with the Al frame (I am assuming that some one already throwing their money away would simply throw the frame away).
> 
> So based on that buying strategy, a Soma Double Cross with the exact same components would cost the difference between the Team Ti frameset and the DC frameset, which is about $500 less (plus the cost of a trip to the recycling center, of course.)


OK, I did the math. From bikeman soma double cross frame 308 US dollars, ritchey comp carbon fork 217 dollars. From GVH with ultegra kit with ritchey wcs wheels (an upgrade from the ritchey ds wheels) for 1306. Assuming no shipping or tax then total is 1831. So cheaper yes. Much cheaper, no.


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

vanjr said:


> OK, I did the math. From bikeman soma double cross frame 308 US dollars, ritchey comp carbon fork 217 dollars. From GVH with ultegra kit with ritchey wcs wheels (an upgrade from the ritchey ds wheels) for 1306. Assuming no shipping or tax then total is 1831. So cheaper yes. Much cheaper, no.


Wrong math. You could save at least a couple hundred by buying the Fantom CX Pro, a frame and fork from GVH and swapping the parts over. You might even be able to sell the Fantom frame and come out that much further ahead. All you are proving is that if you are lousy at finding deals on line and can't even recognize one when somebody lays it out for you, you could spend more money than you need to.

Including a wheelset upgrade in your comparison makes it completely illegitimate anyway.


----------



## vanjr (Sep 15, 2005)

It must be off season cause you sure are cranky

Your point as I understand it: ti cross bike with features mentioned = bad deal
My point: Based on the example you picked the "deal" is just about what your example was. I picked the wheel set because it was easy-GVH didn't have the wheelset in a drop down menu. Yes I could have saved a good bit of money by shopping around, but based on your example this motobecane deal is not bad. Just say you hate 'em and get it over with. I haven't bought anything from them and a LBS supporter myself. But don't try to logic us with your emotions. I think getting a propad from an LBS for 1600 or a redline conqest pro for about the same is a better deal.


----------



## Gripped (Nov 27, 2002)

vanjr said:


> It must be off season cause you sure are cranky.


I still don't think you get what PBB is talking about. He is suggesting that you buy the Motobecane CX Pro for $995 for the parts. Ditch the frame and fork -- or try to Ebay them. Then buy a frame and fork online. Use all those parts from the Motobecane CX Pro to build up the new frame.

So if you can get a nice frameset for $500, then your total price would be $1495 minus whatever you can get for the CX Pro frameset on Ebay (prolly a hundred bucks or less).

Do you understand now?


----------



## ZenNMotion (May 28, 2004)

The only quibble I might have, aside from geometry which hasn't been discussed and would be pretty much 90% of the decision for me, is the breezer style dropouts. They make it a little easier to weld the stays and they make for solid joints, but they're a pain for quick wheel changes and they make it more difficult to place the skewer levers out of harm's way. I have them on one of my crossers, I much prefer a normal dropout without a breezer style hood. Ideally with short semi-horizontal dropouts and as long as it's my wishlist, a replaceable snap off aluminum derailleur hanger, even on a Ti or Steel bike, one that's easily found at QBP like a Kinesis clone or something. But mostly, what's the geometry specs?


----------



## supermex (Aug 12, 2006)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> Motobecane: first choice of smack talkers with low standards :thumbsup:
> 
> What kind of results does one have to acheive before they are allowed to balk at paying $2000 for either a ridiculously over-priced commuter or a ridiculously schizophrenic excuse for a race bike?
> 
> These "features" are find for poor slobs on Somas (like me), but for $2000. .



The kind of results that one gets by living vicarously, through internet forums.


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

*Ohhhhhhhhh. . .*



supermex said:


> The kind of results that one gets by living vicarously, through internet forums.


. . .snap?


----------



## bikesdirect (Sep 9, 2006)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> Thats an interesting question. The Ultegra level Al Fantom CX Pro goes for $997. The Ultegra level Fantom CX Team Ti will sell for $2000. The Ti frameset will sell for $995 minimum. So, when you buy the Team Ti you are paying the equivalent cost for a complete CX Pro bike and an additional Team Ti frameset. At least they are nice enough to spare you a trip to the recycling center with the Al frame (I am assuming that some one already throwing their money away would simply throw the frame away).
> 
> So based on that buying strategy, a Soma Double Cross with the exact same components would cost the difference between the Team Ti frameset and the DC frameset, which is about $500 less (plus the cost of a trip to the recycling center, of course.)



Actually - the Team Ti will be $1795
and the Pro is going up soon like every other bike in the market [2009 price increases will be about 20%]

last, Fantom Cross Pro frame is much better than you seem to realize; there are no aluminum asian made CX frames I can think of that are better. I know the oem cost on almost all imported AL frames; and there are several you imply are worth more that I can buy for less the the Fantom frame.

As for resell; we only got a few hundred Fantom Cross frames [cost much lower than the Pro] and we sold everyone of them in a couple of weeks at around $250

The idea that the Taiwan made Motobecane frames are not as good as the Chinesse made frames so many other brands use is flat silly [and proof that adverstising can fool even those who feel they are experts]. Every year more riders are getting upper end Motos and once they ride them; the hype of heavily adverstised brands is easier to see thru. People start to realize all brands that spec in Asia have access to the same exact frame builders and specs.


----------



## FatTireFred (Jan 31, 2005)

bikesdirect said:


> ...the hype of heavily adverstised brands is easier to see thru...




oh, the irony


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

bikesdirect said:


> I know the oem cost on almost all imported AL frames; and there are several you imply are worth more that I can buy for less the the Fantom frame.


Strawman argument there. I didn't so much as mention a competing Al frames, much less imply anything about their relative worths.



bikesdirect said:


> The idea that the Taiwan made Motobecane frames are not as good as the Chinesse made frames so many other brands use is flat silly [and proof that adverstising can fool even those who feel they are experts].


Strawman argument there too. I didn't assert any such thing and am no more fooled by other people's advertising as I am fooled by _yours_.


----------



## SleeveleSS (Jun 3, 2007)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> It is competing with the Salsa La Cruz, the Soma Double Cross Disc and perhaps the *Salsa Las Cruces* which seems to have floundered trying to appeal to the same list of demands.



So much for not even mentioning a competing Al frame.  

Bold added for emphasis.


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

SleeveleSS said:


> So much for not even mentioning a competing Al frame.
> 
> Bold added for emphasis.


I did not imply that the Las Cruces was worth more than the Team Ti, which is what *bikesdirect* accused me of.

Nor did I mention it as a competitor -- more as a failed predecessor.

But on pedantic principle, I did *mention* it.


----------



## d2p (Jul 29, 2006)

huh? let's see - go to m-w.com, enter p-e-n-d-a-n-t-i-c, hit enter, 

pedantic 
Main Entry: pe·dan·tic 
Pronunciation: \pi-ˈdan-tik\ 
Function: adjective 
Date: circa 1600 
1 : of, relating to, or being a pedant 
2 : narrowly, stodgily, and often ostentatiously learned 
3 : unimaginative, pedestrian 
— pe·dan·ti·cal·ly \-ˈdan-ti-k(ə-)lē\ adverb 

okay, carry on . . .


----------



## SleeveleSS (Jun 3, 2007)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> I did not imply that the Las Cruces was worth more than the Team Ti, which is what *bikesdirect* accused me of.
> 
> Nor did I mention it as a competitor -- more as a failed predecessor.
> 
> But on pedantic principle, I did *mention* it.



How does "It is competing...with the Salsa Las Cruces" equate to not mentioning it as a competitor. Competing---competitor, hmmmmmmmm. You can't be serious. Are you even reading what you wrote?


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

SleeveleSS said:


> How does "It is competing...with the Salsa Las Cruces" equate to not mentioning it as a competitor. Competing---competitor, hmmmmmmmm. You can't be serious. Are you even reading what you wrote?


That's a nicely placed ellipsis you got there. Really cuts out all the fluff and gets to the heart of my meaning 

Besides , the Las Cruces is scandium and bikesdirect said "AL". In the context of bike frames there is a difference, and it is a distinction that scrupulus poster such as yourself is sure to respect. 

I am glad that your girlfriend likes her commuter. I am glad that the idea of a Ti version pleases you. I hope that bikesdirect sells out of Team Ti -- for $1800 its a fine deal for whatever someone wants to use it for.

A '"true CX" bike it is not.

And for the record, I am not trying to avoid admitting that I did say that the Team Ti is competing with the Las Cruces, which is technically aluminum. But I don't think that bikesdirect was referring to that comment. First, bikesdirect said "several" and the Las Cruces is only one. Second, bikesdirect said I implied that these several were worth more and I said that the Las Cruces is floundering. So I still don't know what he is referring to.


----------



## supermex (Aug 12, 2006)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> That's a nicely placed ellipsis you got there. Really cuts out all the fluff and gets to the heart of my meaning
> 
> Besides , the Las Cruces is scandium and bikesdirect said "AL". In the context of bike frames there is a difference, and it is a distinction that scrupulus poster such as yourself is sure to respect.
> 
> ...



How is it not a true cross bike?? I suppose that you will have to break out your thesaurus when you reply, so I'll let you get to it.


----------



## d2p (Jul 29, 2006)

difference between "true CX" and "true cross"


----------



## buck-50 (Sep 20, 2005)

supermex said:


> How is it not a true cross bike??


Not made in Belgium. 

Seriously, the heart of what PBB is getting at is that if it's got disc brake mounts and fender mounts, it's not a full-on, balls-out cross racer, in his opinion, and most likely in the opinion of serious cross racers and pros- just like in motorcycle racing, if you can drive it home, it's not a race bike.

I'm assuming that he'd feel the same way about the rivendell legolas, since it's got fender mounts. 

Now, as to whether you can successfully race a bike burdened with the extra weight of disc tabs and fender mounts, that's up to you and your legs.


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

buck-50 said:


> Not made in Belgium.
> 
> Seriously, the heart of what PBB is getting at is that if it's got disc brake mounts and fender mounts, it's not a full-on, balls-out cross racer, in his opinion, and most likely in the opinion of serious cross racers and pros- just like in motorcycle racing, if you can drive it home, it's not a race bike.
> 
> ...


If you worried about the weight of disc tabs and fender mounts for RACING, you are in need of a reality check. What's that gonna add weight wise? Maybe 100g? This is coming from a WW no less  .

Look, BD can be a little "over-the-top" when marketing their bikes. Some some point are vaild here. On looks of having the mounts I can understand. But weight concerns? Not making it a pure race bike?

That's like WW MTB racers complaing about disc tabs or WW Disc MTB disc racers complaing about V-Brake mounts after the studs are removed.

If 100g if keeping you off the podium, then get some better training or take a laxative the night before.

Now if you are talking about looks? Then I totally agree with PBB.


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

DIRT BOY said:


> If you worried about the weight of disc tabs and fender mounts for RACING, you are in need of a reality check. What's that gonna add weight wise? Maybe 100g? This is coming from a WW no less  .
> 
> Look, BD can be a little "over-the-top" when marketing their bikes. Some some point are vaild here. On looks of having the mounts I can understand. But weight concerns? Not making it a pure race bike?
> 
> ...


Before we (I) get off track again, here is where the "true CX" designation originated.


bikesdirect said:


> This is a true CX frame so no cables on DT like some brands do on 'cyclo cross'. {I understand that purists do not need or want eyelets or disc tabs -- but they only make the bike illegal to race if disc are mounted.}


bikesdirect says that his frame is a "true CX" frame because doesn't have DT cable routing other like other brands. That is nonsense.

He also acknowledges that the disc tabs and eyelets are a detriment to the frames race appeal.



bikesdirect said:


> All that said; when we do a sub 17 lb CX TEAM SL Ti - it will have no disc tabs or eyelets - race bike for those that want race bike only


Looks like bikesdirect acknowledges the weight concerns of racers too.


----------



## the pope (Mar 28, 2004)

this thread.


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> bikesdirect says that his frame is a "true CX" frame because doesn't have DT cable routing other like other brands. That is nonsense.


I understand that. I don't know much about cross bikes so I can't comment much.



> He also acknowledges that the disc tabs and eyelets are a detriment to the frames race appeal.


That'skinda silly IMO, unless you are a real purist or traditionalist.



> Looks like bikesdirect acknowledges the weight concerns of racers too.


That's just kinda dumb and lack of real knowledge. Most really good racers with a fair amount of technical sense of things knows thsi can be overblown a bit. Now hauling a lighter bike over your shouder does become eaiser and is very nice. But the weight of disc tabs and fender mounts is NOT going to harm you.

I agree with most your ponts and BD can be a little much when talking about thier bikes. But Mike does have a point to a certain exstent when talkig about pricing, builds, quality etc. Again to a certain point. Just because the frame, material and factory is the same as other builds, this does NOT mean they are equal. Tis is where he loses IMO. Unless he is talking abut generic frames that are the EXACT smae frame just being re-branded by several vendors.


But from a traditional cross sense, you make a lot of points.

I have a question though. Would real kinds tradtional look of a cross bike really just be a road bike with larger tire clearence and canti brakes?

I assume that's how cross bikes started out in the begining right?

Dsic brake sare NOT allowed in National sanctioned races right? But local corss events they would be fine right? I was thinking of a cross bike, but I would want to use disc brakes. Same as my MTB.


----------



## buck-50 (Sep 20, 2005)

DIRT BOY said:


> If you worried about the weight of disc tabs and fender mounts for RACING, you are in need of a reality check. What's that gonna add weight wise? Maybe 100g? This is coming from a WW no less  .


Sorry- here's how that was meant- 
[SARCASM=BUCK-50]Now, as to whether you can successfully race a bike burdened with the extra weight of disc tabs and fender mounts, that's up to you and your legs.[/SARCASM]

I'm always forgetting my sarcasm html. 

I've got a Las Cruces- it's light as @#$% despite being burdened with extra unused brackets. 

I will say this- a frame that's spaced for 135 hubs is a pain in the @$$- you can't really swap wheels with your other road bikes, which sucks.


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

DIRT BOY said:


> That'skinda silly IMO, unless you are a real purist or traditionalist.
> 
> That's just kinda dumb and lack of real knowledge. Most really good racers with a fair amount of technical sense of things knows thsi can be overblown a bit. Now hauling a lighter bike over your shouder does become eaiser and is very nice. But the weight of disc tabs and fender mounts is NOT going to harm you.


Silly or not, if you look at most other bike racing disciplines, "race" bikes do not have rack mounts. Weight also plays prominently in their marketing.

*bikesdirect* advertises this as a "true CX" bike with rack mounts and disc tabs and then admonishes not to worry about their impact on racing, then announces a futre "race" specific version that expressly does not have these features. Huh?

The tabs and eyelets aren't going to harm anyone riding the bike. But if *bikesdirect* wants to sell bikes to CX racers, they are detriment. This is reflected in a good portion of the responses in this thread and elsewhere on this board. It is also acknowledged by his own plans for the Team SL. They add weight and cost -- harmless or not, why would anyone want more of these things if they don't serve any benefit to the consumer? If I am going to carry an extra 100g during a race, I would rather it be in a component of my choosing (or an extra apple fritter beforehand).

Of course, all of my comments were foolishly predicated on the notion that bikesdirect was seriously interested in feedback.



DIRT BOY said:


> I have a question though. Would real kinds tradtional look of a cross bike really just be a road bike with larger tire clearence and canti brakes?
> 
> I assume that's how cross bikes started out in the begining right?


I don't have a definition of a "traditional" or even "true" cyclocross bike. Whatever gets a person around a cyclocross course as quickly as possible is in. Stuff that helps someone get their groceries home or their khakis clean is out. If someone wants those features anyway, great, but they still don't have anything to do with cyclocross.

If you look at the vast majority of cyclocross racers, pro and amateur, their bikes tend to have similar features. I suppose some will argue that the pros ride what the sponsors tell them to and/or are dogmatic traditionalists, and that amateurs just copy the pros, but whatever the reason a drop bar 700C bike with a horizontal (or near) TT, clearance for 32-34C tires & cantilever brakes seems to be a popular starting point.


----------



## big boy phil (Aug 11, 2005)

Mike - I hope your wife did well in the Boston marathon.
I was hoping you might be able to let us all know about the bikes geometry as well as the frame sizes you will be offering. Because like someone else mentioned, it is a big factor in making a decision whether this bike will be right for me.


----------

