# New FR and VR Models



## GOTA

The F and Z are history. In their place are the FR and VR. The pictures look amazing. The VR with 35mm tires, climbing cranks and fenders is one of the coolest new releases I've seen in a long time. I'm definitely looking at that one when it's available.

Felt gives shape to their future with all-new FR road and VR gravel bikes - Bikerumor


----------



## Rashadabd

Velonews has first ride reviews for both up:

First Ride: New Felt FR racer with disc, power meter options | VeloNews.com

First Ride: Felt's new VR variable road machine | VeloNews.com


----------



## Rashadabd

Peloton Magazine has all of the prices for the FR lineup:

Need for Speed: Felt Introduces the FR - Peloton Magazine


----------



## Rashadabd

Another FR ride review:

Road Bike Action | FELT GOES ULTRA-LIGHT WITH NEW ?FR? LINE


----------



## cobra_kai

Interesting that they increased the stack length so much on the FR over the F. It should pretty much match the geometry of the AR now.


----------



## Rashadabd

cobra_kai said:


> Interesting that they increased the stack length so much on the FR over the F. It should pretty much match the geometry of the AR now.


Yeah, I really like the changes to be honest. It's probably my favorite bike this year thus far (I also give a thumbs up to the BMC Road Machine and Supersix Evo Disc. I am also interested in seeing what Specialized does with the new Roubaix and Tarmac Disc).


----------



## GOTA

cobra_kai said:


> Interesting that they increased the stack length so much on the FR over the F. It should pretty much match the geometry of the AR now.


They said that the F was to twitchy for non-pro racers. I read somewhere that F sales kept dropping while Z sales kept growing so it makes sense to put some stability into the race bikes. The pictures look amazing. Best paint of any new bikes that I've seen so far. The VR is more for me but that FR really looks great


----------



## Rashadabd

Actual weights:

2017 Felt FR road bikes - specs, pricing, actual weights & first rides - Bikerumor

I think I have actually developed a crush on the FR Disc at this point...


----------



## MMsRepBike

No aero shapes at all because aero shapes lack stiffness and are too heavy...

Well what about the Cervelo RCA or R5? Do they have a patent on the squoval shape? If so he got around his own patent with squareo or whatever it is now with 3T.

Doesn't make sense to me, sounds more like they either don't have the chops to do proper aerodynamic shapes or they're straight up lying about it.


And again with the brake under the chainstays? Are they really that dumb? Are they deaf to feedback from the public and pros? And no direct mount front brake?

I'm just not buying their cutting edge nonsense here. We all know that good braking and aerodynamics don't count for **** right?


----------



## Superdave3T

MMsRepBike said:


> No aero shapes at all because aero shapes lack stiffness and are too heavy...
> Well what about the Cervelo RCA or R5? Do they have a patent on the squoval shape? If so he got around his own patent with squareo or whatever it is now with 3T.
> Doesn't make sense to me, sounds more like they either don't have the chops to do proper aerodynamic shapes or they're straight up lying about it.
> And again with the brake under the chainstays? Are they really that dumb? Are they deaf to feedback from the public and pros? And no direct mount front brake?
> I'm just not buying their cutting edge nonsense here. We all know that good braking and aerodynamics don't count for **** right?


You're comparing an RCA with a Felt FR2?

Don't have the chops? Have you seen the drag data on AR and IA?

I'm not very smart but I know putting the Shimano direct mount brakes on the chainstays allows for a lighter, more compliant frame. A Direct Mount front brake does the EXACT opposite for the fork.

You may be surprised to learn that aesthetics play an important role in sales and many consumers shy away from "aero" thus the need for a more traditional shape on the frame tubes. You may also be surprised to learn that bikes like the old Scott Foil which claimed to be aero, were actually no better than bikes like the Felt F1 or SuperSixEVO once outfitted with parts and humans.

Can you tell me the last time a UCI World Championship in the Time Trial was won on a bike with brakes NOT on the chainstays?

Who in your opinion makes the best "Stiffness-to-weight" focused frame available today?
Who makes the best "Stiffness-to-weight" bike for $3000, $5000? 

-SD


----------



## Rashadabd

MMsRepBike said:


> No aero shapes at all because aero shapes lack stiffness and are too heavy...
> 
> Well what about the Cervelo RCA or R5? Do they have a patent on the squoval shape? If so he got around his own patent with squareo or whatever it is now with 3T.
> 
> Doesn't make sense to me, sounds more like they either don't have the chops to do proper aerodynamic shapes or they're straight up lying about it.
> 
> 
> And again with the brake under the chainstays? Are they really that dumb? Are they deaf to feedback from the public and pros? And no direct mount front brake?
> 
> I'm just not buying their cutting edge nonsense here. We all know that good braking and aerodynamics don't count for **** right?


Uh... you do realize that they make both the AR and the IA, two of the most aero platforms out there??? It's different horses for different courses really and the claims that are made about the impact that aerodynamic *frames* have is hype to a large degree man. A bike doesn't have to have aero tubing to be good/relevant/fast. It is no coincidence that the Giant TCR, new Cannondale Supersix Evo, Trek Emonda, Fuji SL, and the vast majority of GC/climbing bikes have eschewed aero tubing in favor of more traditional tube shapes because any value they would add (minimal) is outweighed by the negative impact that would accompany going that route. Felt's not dumb, they are actually one of the best in the game and I am not a lovestruck fanboy by any stretch. They have a great aero bike and the FR is not meant to be a carbon copy, it's an all around GC/climbing bike of the highest order and if you use that standard to evaluate the FR, I personally don't see how you can argue that it isn't a home run on many levels. I am also not a huge fan of rear brakes tucked behind the bb, but that is offset for me by the inclusion of three disc brake equipped models in the lineup. More on Felt:

Six reasons why Felt is making some of the world?s best bikes | VeloNews.com


----------



## MMsRepBike

Superdave3T said:


> You're comparing an RCA with a Felt FR2?
> 
> Don't have the chops? Have you seen the drag data on AR and IA?
> 
> I'm not very smart but I know putting the Shimano direct mount brakes on the chainstays allows for a lighter, more compliant frame. A Direct Mount front brake does the EXACT opposite for the fork.
> 
> You may be surprised to learn that aesthetics play an important role in sales and many consumers shy away from "aero" thus the need for a more traditional shape on the frame tubes. You may also be surprised to learn that bikes like the old Scott Foil which claimed to be aero, were actually no better than bikes like the Felt F1 or SuperSixEVO once outfitted with parts and humans.
> 
> Can you tell me the last time a UCI World Championship in the Time Trial was won on a bike with brakes NOT on the chainstays?
> 
> Who in your opinion makes the best "Stiffness-to-weight" focused frame available today?
> Who makes the best "Stiffness-to-weight" bike for $3000, $5000?
> 
> -SD



Yes, of course I'm comparing the RCA/R5 to this new climbing/GC bike from Felt... 

We're not talking about the AR or any other platform, we're talking about this bike. They said they can't make aero shapes and still have it be light and stiff. Other companies can though. So that sounds like they don't have the chops to me. They said this bike was purely about weight and stiffness, nothing else. Shortsighted? In my opinion absolutely. Compare this "long term project" of theirs with the "project California." You will find many similarities but you won't find cut corners by Cervelo.


The current UCI TT world champion rides a bike with NO chainstay brakes. Do yourself a favor and google the Pinarello Bolide. You'll find a threaded bottom bracket too to boot. And is this a TT bike? I thought it was a climbing/GC bike. So what do TT bikes have to do with this? If a TT bike has to make an aerodynamic compromise and therefore put the brake under the chainstay... and if this Felt bike has zero aerodynamic ambitions... Do a little reading up from those that own these brakes on these type of bikes, look up the old Madone, then come tell me it's a good idea.


Who cares what I think about who's the "best" at stiffness to weight. That's not even the most important part of a bike to me. Felt obviously made several compromises to get the stiffness/weight ratio they wanted on this bike. They compromised the tube shapes and they compromised the brakes for it. It's up to the buyer to decide if those compromises are worth it.



Rashadabd said:


> Uh... you do realize that they make both the AR and the DA, two of the most aero platforms out there??? It's different horses for different courses really and the claims that are made about the impact that aerodynamic *frames* have is hype to a large degree man. A bike doesn't have to have aero tubing to be good/relevant/fast. It is no coincidence that the Giant TCR, new Cannondale Supersix Evo, Trek Emonda, Fuji SL, and the vast majority of GC/climbing bikes have eschewed aero tubing in favor of more traditional tube shapes because any value it would add (minimal) is outweighed by the negative impact that would accompany going that route. Felt's not dumb, they are actually one of the best in the game and I am not a lovestruck fanboy by any stretch. They have a great aero bike and the FR is not meant to be a carbon copy, it's an all around GC/climbing bike of the highest order and if you use that standard to evaluate the FR, I personally don't see how you can argue that it isn't a home run on many levels. I am also not a huge fan of rear brakes tucked behind the bb, but that is offset for me by the inclusion of three disc brake equipped models in the lineup. More on Felt:
> 
> Six reasons why Felt is making some of the world?s best bikes | VeloNews.com


A bike can be fast without aerodynamics built into the frame, yes of course. But this is 2016... you really believe them that they can't do it? You really believe that a stiff bike can't be aerodynamic. If so the RCA couldn't exist.

Outside of it having a high stiffness to weight ratio, where is it a home run? On many levels huh? Where? Aero? nope. Good brakes? nope. What's left? Geometry has nothing to do with this discussion so that's out. You say it's okay because they have disc brake options... what?


----------



## Rashadabd

MMsRepBike said:


> Yes, of course I'm comparing the RCA/R5 to this new climbing/GC bike from Felt...
> 
> We're not talking about the AR or any other platform, we're talking about this bike. They said they can't make aero shapes and still have it be light and stiff. Other companies can though. So that sounds like they don't have the chops to me. They said this bike was purely about weight and stiffness, nothing else. Shortsighted? In my opinion absolutely. Compare this "long term project" of theirs with the "project California." You will find many similarities but you won't find cut corners by Cervelo.
> 
> Is this a TT bike? I thought it was a climbing/GC bike. So what do TT bikes have to do with this? If a TT bike has to make an aerodynamic compromise and therefore put the brake under the chainstay... and if this Felt bike has zero aerodynamic ambitions... Do a little reading up from those that own these brakes on these type of bikes, look up the old Madone, then come tell me it's a good idea.
> 
> 
> Who cares what I think about who's the "best" at stiffness to weight. That's not even the most important part of a bike to me. Felt obviously made several compromises to get the stiffness/weight ratio they wanted on this bike. They compromised the tube shapes and they compromised the brakes for it. It's up to the buyer to decide if those compromises are worth it.
> 
> 
> 
> A bike can be fast without aerodynamics built into the frame, yes of course. But this is 2016... you really believe them that they can't do it? You really believe that a stiff bike can't be aerodynamic. If so the RCA couldn't exist.
> 
> Outside of it having a high stiffness to weight ratio, where is it a home run? On many levels huh? Where? Aero? nope. Good brakes? nope. What's left? Geometry has nothing to do with this discussion so that's out. You say it's okay because they have disc brake options... what?


You keep referencing the Cervelo bikes like they are some untouchable gold standard, they are great, but they have their pros and cons like every other bike and I used to own an R3. The home run reference begins with the carbon layup which is one of the best, if not the best, in the entire industry. From there, they took a super stiff race bike and made it more comfortable for the every day rider. Something that only Cannondale has really matched them in from what I hear. Next, they already had lights out handling and they kept that, but made it less twitchy and to add icing to the cake, they are offering discs on a pure race platform, throwing in a power meter on the higher end models, and it is one of the lightest race bikes out there with what sounds like some of the better stiffness to weight numbers. What more do you want? Do you just need to read the word aero somewhere or do you only like bikes with Cervelo labels? 

None of the bikes I mentioned above have true aero tube shapes, but they are all considered the best all around/GC frames on the planet for the most part (you can add the Specialized Tarmac and Focus Izalco Max to that list for good measure). You are looking for a factor in a range where it's just not that relevant. Nobody but you is seriously suggesting that R5 is superior to those other bikes. So, what is *your* point? Moreoever, my guess is that the R Series isn't all that aero and not significantly more aero (in any way that is meaningful on an actual ride) than any of the other bikes I have referenced.

To answer your other question, I believe that Felt could have went in any number of directions, but made other features their priority and I like the calls they made on this model. To each his own though....


----------



## MMsRepBike

Rashadabd said:


> You keep referencing the Cervelo bikes like they are some untouchable gold standard, they are great, but they have their pros and cons like every other bike and I used to own an R3. The home run reference begins with the carbon layup which is one of the best, if not the best, in the entire industry. From there, they took a super stiff race bike and made it more comfortable for the every day rider. Something that only Cannondale has really matched them in from what I hear. Next, they already had lights out handling and they kept that, but made it less twitchy and to add icing to the cake, they are offering discs on a pure race platform, throwing in a power meter on the higher end models, and it is one of the lightest race bikes out there with what sounds like some of the better stiffness to weight numbers. What more do you want? Do you just need to read the word aero somewhere or do you only like bikes with Cervelo labels?
> 
> None of the bikes I mentioned above have true aero tube shapes, but they are all considered the best all around/GC frames on the planet for the most part (you can add the Specialized Tarmac and Focus Izalco Max to that list for good measure). You are looking for a factor in a range where it's just not that relevant. Nobody but you is seriously suggesting that R5 is superior to those other bikes. So, what is *your* point? Moreoever, my guess is that the R Series isn't all that aero and not significantly more aero (in any way that is meaningful on an actual ride) than any of the other bikes I have referenced.
> 
> To answer your other question, I believe that Felt could have went in any number of directions, but made other features their priority and I like the calls they made on this model. To each his own though....


The layup is the best? You're just reading and spitting out kool-aid now.

Only the Cannondale is a comfortable race bike? The RCA in question has a sloping top tube with a 27.2 post and dropped stays. Let me tell you from experience it's quite comfortable.

Discs as an advantage... yeah, to you maybe.

Including a power meter in the stock bike... that means nothing. I don't want a Pioneer unit anyway. I'm not keen on a frame manufacturer forcing me into a certain power meter.

What more do I want? Less bullshit to start.

MY point is simple, and using the RCA/R5 as a comparison is simple. It has nothing to do with Cervelo or their brand or anything. It has everything to do with it being a bike that Felt is saying is basically impossible. Internal cabling requires extra weight they say. Can't have aero tubes or it's either too heavy or too soft. If I were to believe Felt, the RCA must be a complete noodle. It obviously is not.

I pick the RCA/R5 because it is a perfect real world example that goes against all of their claims. You CAN have aero tubes, you CAN have traditional brakes, you CAN have it all and still be ultra lightweight and super stiff and comfortable and have precise race handling and "endurance" comfort. It's been on the market for many years now. By now companies should be one upping it or three upping it. Not saying it's not possible.

You don't think the R5/RCA is very aerodynamic? Hahaha. Go check out Tour magazine.


----------



## Rashadabd

MMsRepBike said:


> The layup is the best? You're just reading and spitting out kool-aid now.
> 
> Only the Cannondale is a comfortable race bike? The RCA in question has a sloping top tube with a 27.2 post and dropped stays. Let me tell you from experience it's quite comfortable.
> 
> Discs as an advantage... yeah, to you maybe.
> 
> Including a power meter in the stock bike... that means nothing. I don't want a Pioneer unit anyway. I'm not keen on a frame manufacturer forcing me into a certain power meter.
> 
> What more do I want? Less bullshit to start.
> 
> MY point is simple, and using the RCA/R5 as a comparison is simple. It has nothing to do with Cervelo or their brand or anything. It has everything to do with it being a bike that Felt is saying is basically impossible. Internal cabling requires extra weight they say. Can't have aero tubes or it's either too heavy or too soft. If I were to believe Felt, the RCA must be a complete noodle. It obviously is not.
> 
> I pick the RCA/R5 because it is a perfect real world example that goes against all of their claims. You CAN have aero tubes, you CAN have traditional brakes, you CAN have it all and still be ultra lightweight and super stiff and comfortable and have precise race handling and "endurance" comfort. It's been on the market for many years now. By now companies should be one upping it or three upping it. Not saying it's not possible.
> 
> You don't think the R5/RCA is very aerodynamic? Hahaha. Go check out Tour magazine.


Refute what I said about their layup if it is fiction. To state things is simple. I don't think Felt is saying anything you are mentioning is impossible. Again, it's about priorities and Focus, Wilier, Cannondale, and Felt have reached the conclusion that internal cable routing is overrated for lightweight stiffness to weight climbing bikes. You and Cervelo may feel different and that's fine. Your whole argument is based on the premise that the Cervelo R Series is without flaws/downside and the unblemished standard and I simply don't agree with that. Is it a really nice bike, sure, but I know that each of these bikes is a great platform for the most part and that each has strengths and weaknesses. I like what Felt has done and the choices they made here. I also like other bikes (including a number of the ones I listed above). If you think the Cervelo R is the end all be all, that's cool too.


----------



## Rashadabd

MMsRepBike said:


> The layup is the best? You're just reading and spitting out kool-aid now.
> 
> Only the Cannondale is a comfortable race bike? The RCA in question has a sloping top tube with a 27.2 post and dropped stays. Let me tell you from experience it's quite comfortable.
> 
> Discs as an advantage... yeah, to you maybe.
> 
> Including a power meter in the stock bike... that means nothing. I don't want a Pioneer unit anyway. I'm not keen on a frame manufacturer forcing me into a certain power meter.
> 
> What more do I want? Less bullshit to start.
> 
> MY point is simple, and using the RCA/R5 as a comparison is simple. It has nothing to do with Cervelo or their brand or anything. It has everything to do with it being a bike that Felt is saying is basically impossible. Internal cabling requires extra weight they say. Can't have aero tubes or it's either too heavy or too soft. If I were to believe Felt, the RCA must be a complete noodle. It obviously is not.
> 
> I pick the RCA/R5 because it is a perfect real world example that goes against all of their claims. You CAN have aero tubes, you CAN have traditional brakes, you CAN have it all and still be ultra lightweight and super stiff and comfortable and have precise race handling and "endurance" comfort. It's been on the market for many years now. By now companies should be one upping it or three upping it. Not saying it's not possible.
> 
> You don't think the R5/RCA is very aerodynamic? Hahaha. Go check out Tour magazine.


FWIW, you also keep avoiding this reality, but bygones: 

None of the bikes I mentioned above have true aero tube shapes, but they are all considered the best all around/GC frames on the planet for the most part (you can add the Specialized Tarmac and Focus Izalco Max to that list for good measure).


----------



## Rashadabd

In their own words:


----------



## FeltF75rider

I will take either one of these, right after I sell the Tarmac. I like the F series so a test ride is in order for comparison though.


----------



## Rashadabd

A good discussion on Felt's business and the new VR:

When Fun Is the Goal | RKP


----------



## Rashadabd

Travis McCabe took the win on his Felt FR today in the Tour of Utah:

McCabe sprints to Holowesko's second Utah win | VeloNews.com


----------



## FeltF75rider

Without an aero bike? In 2016? Apparently stiff and light weight works.:mad2: Maybe with a Venge and all the right gear he could have won by 5 minutes. 

When do these new Felts hit the dealer, I am itching for a test ride.:thumbsup:


----------



## riccardo123

I'm not sure where this will leave me next time I need a bike. I liked riding the F series, but my back hurt after 20 odd miles... the Z series is perfect, after changing the crankset to 52/36.

It seems Felt have mover the FR towards me a little, and the VR away from me on the other side (before even considering the subcompact gearing, which I guess could be changed). I have a nasty feeling that my personal sweet spot may have been left behind...


----------



## jrhz06

Better half has a Z now that she loves except that she would like the option to put on a wider tire. VR2 on order for her. Seems like exactly what she wanted.


----------



## Harley-Dale

I am all in on a VR2 this winter. I bought a 2016 AR2 over summer and it will do double duty as my road and tri bike with different setups.
I sold my Z4 (too small) and will replace it with the VR2 for a good ride on the bad roads and trails around here. Dont want to tear up my AR2, which is one hell of a sweet ride.
Just need to sell my B-12 (2013) now. Its upgraded to DI2 if anyone is interested.


----------



## lightning33

Any opinions on this "new" line or the latest and greatest? They have been out for a while with a lot of people saying they would check one out or get one when available; has anyone? I am considering one and looking for real world thoughts and opinions. Thanks.


----------



## Rashadabd

lightning33 said:


> Any opinions on this "new" line or the latest and greatest? They have been out for a while with a lot of people saying they would check one out or get one when available; has anyone? I am considering one and looking for real world thoughts and opinions. Thanks.


They are nice bikes for sure and if you go to Piermont Bikes eBay store you can probably get one at a HUGE discount right now. I just bought a Focus Cayo Disc from them for an incredible price. A number of people like the 35mmish tire clearance and ride quality of the VR.


----------



## lightning33

My LBS, which usually pushes Specialized pretty hard, told me to take a look at Felt because they "finally got their act together." I did, and I like what I see. I was looking at getting a Tarmac, but am reconsidering the FR and maybe even the VR. My first bike was a Felt and there is a special place in my heart for smaller brands not many outsiders have heard of. I also, on a whim, thought about a gravel bike (even though I have never ridden on gravel and don't even know where a gravel route is around me) because of the versatility. Well, maybe a gravel bike isn't 98% of a road bike as thought, but the VR might be 98% of a gravel bike. 

I also have never raced. I do like to go fast, but who doesn't. I ride for enjoyment and fitness. I enjoy doing longer rides with friends or organized rides (ie centuries). 

A few questions:

1) I am kind of put off by the external cable routing on the FR line. Should I be?
2) I also, for no good reason, can't help but think of an endurance bike as a lesser bike. Should I?
3) Do they come with a carbon cockpit like I think the description says (their new site has a bunch of mistakes)?
4) The Reynolds wheels - AR29 vs AR41 (as in the wheels on the VR vs FR). Is there any aero benefit to a 29mm deep wheel?
4a) I weigh 220ish. I can't seem to find weight limits for the wheels or bikes. Are there any?

Thanks!! I will check out that site too.


----------



## Rashadabd

lightning33 said:


> My LBS, whi h usually pushes Specialized pretty hard, told me to take a look at Felt because they "finally got their act together." I did, and I like what I see. I was looking at getting a Tarmac, but am reconsidering the FR and maybe even the VR. My first bike was a Felt and there is a special place in my heart for smaller brands not many outsiders have heard of. I also, on a whim, thought about a gravel bike (even though I have never ridden on gravel and don't even know where gravel route is around me) because of the versatility. Well, maybe a gravel bike isn't 98% of a road bike as thought, but the VR might be 98% of a gravel bike?
> 
> A few questions:
> 
> 1) I am kind of put off by the external cable routing on the FR line. Should I be?
> 2) I also, for no good reason, can't help but think of an endurance bike as a lesser bike. Should I?
> 3) Do they come with a carbon cockpit like I think the description says (their new site has a bunch of mistakes)?
> 4) The Reynolds wheels - AR29 vs AR41 (as in the wheels on the VR vs FR). Is there any aero benefit to a 29mm deep wheel?
> 4a) I weigh 220ish. I can't seem to find weight limits for the wheels or bikes. Are there any?
> 
> Thanks!! I will check out that site too.


Whew, these are some heavy questions that many cyclists debate, but I will do my best here and give you my thoughts. These are really just my preferences though and there really aren’t any objectively right or wrong answers on most of this stuff. Next post will contain answers. Need to open my laptop though.


----------



## lightning33

You are the man! I have paralysis through analysis (or however that goes) right now and am just stuck. Little things that I didn't think matter suddenly are make-it-or-break-it things...until they aren't again.


----------



## Rashadabd

A VR is definitely in the light gravel category if you throw a pair of 33mm-35mm tires on it. Not pure gravel, but you can ride some decent stuff on it for sure. FR is more of a pure race bike, VR is a solid endurance road bike. 

1. External cable routing doesn't really have a performance downside. Some cyclists love it for the simplicity of routing externally and repairs. I don't like the look either, so I don't go with it. One way to have your cake and eat it to is to go electronic on those bikes. External routing also tends to be a bit less aero if you care. 

2. Most of us are probably better off on an race oriented endurance bike instead of a race bike with a bunch of spacers and a bad fit. Endurance bikes have come a long way and many are raced in Spring Classics today, so depending on what your cycling goals are, they could very well be the perfect choice. 

3. I have no idea, just check the spec with the retailer before you buy.

4. You probably get a little aero from a 29mm, but most brands and cyclists tend to start thinking aero at 30mm and above, particularly 35-55mm. Most would acknowledge there is often a tradeoff for aero on the weight and wind catching side of things though, so keep in mind your goals, weather, and intended use. 

5. Felt used to have the weights on their site, but ask the retailer to double check that for you.


----------



## Rashadabd

lightning33 said:


> You are the man! I have paralysis through analysis (or however that goes) right now and am just stuck. Little things that I didn't think matter suddenly are make-it-or-break-it things...until they aren't again.


No problem at all. Gravel bikes are great by the way, if you aren't primarily into pure road events, fast group rides/races, and lots of climbing, etc. Keep reminding yourself, it all comes down to your preferences and intended use. There are no right answers with this stuff for the most part. It's all about what's right for you given how you ride. Depending on your budget, you might be able to pick up one of each from Piermont, given how low some of their prices are to be honest.


----------



## lightning33

Rashadabd said:


> A VR is definitely in the light gravel category if you throw a pair of 33mm-35mm tires on it. Not pure gravel, but you can ride some decent stuff on it for sure. FR is more of a pure race bike, VR is a solid endurance road bike.
> 
> 1. External cable routing doesn't really have a performance downside. Some cyclists love it for the simplicity of routing externally and repairs. I don't like the look either, so I don't go with it. One way to have your cake and eat it to is to go electronic on those bikes. External routing also tends to be a bit less aero if you care. I mean, I "care" about aero, but it shouldn't matter to me and change anything for me. I do like the aesthetic of internally routed cables though. Di2 is nice, but spendy. I also keep thinking I am going to snag a cable on something.
> 
> 2. Most of us are probably better off on an race oriented endurance bike instead of a race bike with a bunch of spacers and a bad fit. Endurance bikes have come a long way and many are raced in Spring Classics today, so depending on what your cycling goals are, they could very well be the perfect choice. Would the VR fall into the category? I currently ride a Cervelo S1 (alu aero bike from 2010). I ride with all the spacers (roughly 27.5mm of them), so you are probably right.
> 
> 3. I have no idea, just check the spec with the retailer before you buy. They reference a carbon cockpit in the description, but the individual parts get no description and references to them being carbon is left out of the tech specs. Figured you might know.
> 
> 4. You probably get a little aero from a 29mm, but most brands and cyclists tend to start thinking aero at 30mm and above, particularly 35-55mm. Most would acknowledge there is often a tradeoff for aero on the weight and wind catching side of things though, so keep in mind your goals, weather, and intended use. Fair enough. I would for sure prefer the AR41, but the VR, which I am leaning towards, comes with the AR29. Way better than my current Shimano R500 box rims though...
> 
> 5. Felt used to have the weights on their site, but ask the retailer to double check that for you.


I see the weights, but no weight limits listed or referenced anywhere. 

Thanks for taking the time. I take it you ride a Felt bike? What is your steed?


----------



## Rashadabd

lightning33 said:


> You are the man! I have paralysis through analysis (or however that goes) right now and am just stuck. Little things that I didn't think matter suddenly are make-it-or-break-it things...until they aren't again.


Oh and I suffer from the same "condition" and test rides usually help me sort things out a bunch. I can't stay stuck in my head. I have to get out and feel the differences between the bikes. I have also reached a point where I don't believe most of this stuff matters all that much anymore. All of these bikes are so similar and most can be made to ride really well with a little effort. I don't stress it as much now and really kind of focus on best fit for my body and best value for my dollar. It's the training and riding that make the biggest difference in my opinion now. Just get a bike you can afford and like in the category that works best for you given what you like to do I say (endurance, race, aero, gravel, cyclocross, mtb, etc.). Then ride the snot out of it, rinse and repeat every freaking day you can. Ride with people you like, ride with people that are faster than you, challenge yourself, take breaks and go on a mellow cruise sometimes, find new routes, ride to new places, and have as much fun as you possibly can. That's what matters to me now honestly. Bikes are just the means. Get a solid one you like and don't look back. Focus on the riding.


----------



## Rashadabd

Oh and if you are truly looking for aero on an endurance platform, I would say check out the new Roubaix. It’s actually more aero than the new tarmac. Rides like a race bike too. The Canyon Endurace is nice too.


----------



## Rashadabd

The Felt VR definitely falls in the endurance category. 

https://www.bikeradar.com/features/...school-endurance-design-for-california-brand/

https://www.bicycling.com/bikes-gear/a20013089/you-won-t-believe-what-you-can-do-on-the-felt-vr2/

https://www.velonews.com/2016/08/news/first-ride-felts-new-vr-variable-road-machine_416582


----------



## lightning33

I actually wasn’t looking for an endurance bike (actually trying to steer AWAY from them) until i was told to scope out Felt again. Now that i have, i find...

1) it is a but cheaper
2) it has internal cabling
3) might fit the extremely part time graveler

I think, as suggested, test rides are next...


----------



## Rashadabd

lightning33 said:


> I see the weights, but no weight limits listed or referenced anywhere.
> 
> Thanks for taking the time. I take it you ride a Felt bike? What is your steed?


First road bike was a Felt F85 around 2011. Tried lots of different stuff since then. Recently went to an endurance oriented Trek Domane, but got the bug for a change and bought a new Focus Cayo Disc a few weeks ago that I plan to build up as a pure road and climbing bike. I hope to add a true gravel bike that can handle a bit of single track and/or a MTB to that sometime within the next year or so and call it a day. I like the new Santa Cruz Stigmata on the gravel side and the Santa Cruz Hightower on the MTB side.


----------



## lightning33

It be marketing or a non-factor, but i also like the idea of TeXtreme


----------



## Rashadabd

lightning33 said:


> It be marketing or a non-factor, but i also like the idea of TeXtreme


Yeah, it sounds interesting, but I am not convinced it makes much difference in feel or performance out on the road. A test ride should help clarify.


----------



## lightning33

My fit has a somewhat big saddle-bar drop. I wonder if i can get enough seat post with the VR to make my fit close.


----------



## Rashadabd

lightning33 said:


> My fit has a somewhat big saddle-bar drop. I wonder if i can get enough seat post with the VR to make my fit close.


Not sure, that may be tougher with the geometry though. There’s nothing wrong with getting a race bike too if that’s what you prefer. You also don’t have to limit yourself to Specialized and Felt just because that’s what one shop recommends. Shop around, take some test rides, get what you like. It’s your money and your bike. Post pics of what you get. Hope you find something that makes you happy.


----------



## Rashadabd

The new Giant Defy is another one that is both race oriented and endurance based. Trek makes a more comfortable race bike in the Edmonda too with its H2 fit.


----------



## lightning33

No no i know. I had it narrowed to a Tarmac, done decision. Then i found Felt again.

I think the FR has way better geo for me. I need to wrap my head around the external cables. For some reason, it just makes me scratch my head


----------



## Rashadabd

lightning33 said:


> No no i know. I had it narrowed to a Tarmac, done decision. Then i found Felt again.
> 
> I think the FR has way better geo for me. I need to wrap my head around the external cables. For some reason, it just makes me scratch my head


Yeah, I passed on the Focus Izalco Max due in large part to external cable routing. I get it. It sounds like a Felt FR and Specialized Tarmac test ride session could be just what the doctor ordered. Will probably help you sort it all out.


----------



## lightning33

I thought about the Roubaix. Didn't like the idea of the FutureShock; in the store I could easily push it down, which made me feel like I would do the same on climbs. Also, the geo is WAY taller than what I am coming from. Same with the Trek Domane. It just seemed that for those two bikes the bang for the buck (for what was important to me) wasn't that great. 

I ended up with a Felt VR at 15% off. So, that bike, with carbon hoops, for sub $3500. I'll take it. I have had it for about 3 weeks now and love it. Took some getting used to, but I rally dig it. I'm sure I would be saying the same thing for any new bike, but whatever. My shop set it up with all the spacers at first. Which made it quite a bit taller than my old bike. I rode it some and dropped it by a 10mm spacer. I could immediately feel it being lower even though old bike is lower still I think I like where it is though.

Overall, I a happy.



Rashadabd said:


> Oh and if you are truly looking for aero on an endurance platform, I would say check out the new Roubaix. It’s actually more aero than the new tarmac. Rides like a race bike too. The Canyon Endurace is nice too.


----------

