# Intro from a road-riding beginner (Possibly tl;dr, but we'll see!)



## expatbrit (Oct 16, 2013)

Afternoon, all

The forum keeps commenting that I should introduce myself, so (eventually) I thought I would. I'm a 'returning' cyclist -- used to use a bike for everything back in the UK, but that was almost 20 years ago, and mountain bike recreationally about 10 years ago.

Decided I needed to get a little bit fitter (and get down under 200lbs) and especially fitter for a few track days. Talking to some folks at the YCRS, they recommended cycling and while I had a 10 year old 21" frame Kona Caldera in the garage, it'd always been a bit small, plus I was eyeing 29" wheels with green and envious eyes.

So, I picked up a new mountain bike (Trek X-cal, 23" frame) at the end of July, and promptly stuck a set of 38mm H2 tyres on it 'just for a bit', and they haven't come off since. This leads me to believe that I probably should have just bought a road bike in the first place, especially since my brother in the UK pointed me at Strava and now I want to be faster. Not a racer, just faster.

I'm also a mutant, as indicated by the frame sizes. 200mm tall, or there abouts, with a 945mm cycling inseam, 674mm torso, and 725mm arm, according to the LBS. Somewhere just under 90kg, these days. 

I live in NM, and in the foothills of the Sandias -- so I do a lot of climbing. Reading around tells me that that is where weight matters. (For value of matters when the rider is 195lbs and the bike is 20-25).

Typical ride is 20-30 miles 2 or 3 times a week, with the idea that I can eventually be fit enough to do more than that on weekends. I'm aiming for more than 2 or 3, but life keeps happening. Over the last 3 months, I've done about 750 miles and about 50,000' of climbing, at least according to Strava. (So take the accuracy with a pinch of salt). Longest ride is 40 miles, and I was pretty beat after that but failure to hydrate and eat will do that.

So. I'm shopping around for a road bike. I don't want to spend a fortune, which rules out the obvious route of 'Hi, Mr. Zinn, make me something wonderful'. I've lots of ideas, and have built a huge spreadsheet of all the large bikes out there, from the 64cm Secteur and Roubaix, to the KHS Flite 747, to Gunnars, the 63cm Kona Major Jake, the 61cm Felt, some of the Surlys, etc. The $3500 Major Jake is WAY at the top of my price range, but for reference.

All over the map, in quality, price. CX bikes appeal to me, but I can't tell you why, and I loved my old Kona and the dealer who sold it to me is solid. 

The numbers are hurting my head. I'm probably not going to be able to test ride a bike in my size, so I'm keyboard pounding for clues. Honestly, at my level, even if I did ride a bike I probably couldn't say 'that's the one', unfortunately. On the other hand, I don't expect to get a definitive answer on a bike from a bunch of folks you have never seen me.

A few key questions:

Key geometry? I've been looking at ETT and Head Tube Height
Reach and stack -- how do I use them? What's 'about right'?
How much difference is weight going to make, to me, given that I spend so much time climbing? (And whining about it)
Steel, Ti, Carbon? (This seems to be asked repeatedly, and to be massively controversial. I've read threads, and it hurts our heads, it does, precioussss)

Any key advice? My goal is to get a good LBS, and get the relationship. 
I know I'd LIKE to have a light bike, but I'm neither sure I NEED one (not racing!) nor am willing to pay the premium for the imagined gain.

Thanks -- if you got this far, that's a lot of reading stamina.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

This being your first road bike, with no baseline for comparison, I'd stop crunching numbers and find a reputable LBS to work with (and trust in) to pin down your sizing requirements. It would be a plus if they also sold something you were interested in.

Second choice would be to call Gunnar and discuss your intended uses and general measurements and see what they recommend. I disagree that you can't expect to get a definitive answer on a bike from a bunch of folks you have never seen you. Custom bike manufacturers need to be well versed in fitting folks (sight unseen) to bikes, because if they can't, they fail. Gunnar's been around for awhile and is (essentially) a low end Waterford, with Waterford folks having a hand in the operation.

As far as CX bikes are concerned, I like 'em too, but every time I start considering one, I realize that being a dedicated roadie, I don't need one. If the same applies to you, I'd stay with a road bike. If OTOH, you want to stray off pavement to trail, then it's worthy of consideration.

Re: geo, you're right, reach and drop (ETT and HTL, respectively) matter the most. And their measurements translate into reach and stack, but (again) leave this to those well versed in fittings, because the numbers alone will tell you little, not knowing your fit requirements.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (May 28, 2009)

I skimmed. And I was too lazy to convert your measurements into inches. (Ironically, I'm fond of metric at my job.)

You can't possibly be 200 mm tall. You must have meant 2000? Tall, but not crazy-tall. Do you have a proportionately long torso or long limbs?

When comparing road bikes to road bikes, a lot of us could get away with looking at ETT and nothing else. Between proportional geometry, adjusting spacers, and all the different stems out there, getting the height right is not that hard, unless you have wildly different proportions from average. Which you might, I don't apply metric to humans in an intuitive way.

ETT can be messed up by different seat tube angles. A lower seat tube angle would increase ETT, but if I slid my saddle to my preferred spot, there'd be no effect on how far I had to reach to the bars. That's where frame reach and stack come in. Reach is the horizontal distance from the bottom bracket to the top of the head tube and stack is the vertical distance. I think they're potentially better indicators of whether or not a frame will fit because they don't get messed up by playing with seat tube angle or an unusual amount of bottom bracket drop but, similar to my relationship with metric, while I know "my" ETT, I don't know "my" reach.

Weight is overrated. You wouldn't want to haul a 45 lb weight up a hill with you, but 5 or even 10 lb here and there don't matter that much. And in reality, you're going to look at a bunch of road bikes competing for a certain amount of your money; they're going to come in within a couple pounds of each other.

Frame material choices are pretty overrated too. Carbon is high-status. Steel projects a message about your taste (or that you're precious, depends on your perspective.  ) Ti is kind of like an ostentatious watch. Aluminum is cheaper. They all ride pretty much how they're designed to, whether that's stiff or mellow, although I think the mythology about steel's ride quality has dropped the bottom out of any market for stiff steel bikes. So it mostly comes down to what you want your bike to say about you, or if you care. FWIW, I do get a kick out of having a scandium-framed MTB. The impetus for a lot of those threads is that most people have a hard time admitting they bought a bike because they enjoy toys, or so the other lawyers on their group ride would know they can afford it. (Though I do have a soft spot for fancy tires....) I did also enjoy that people thought my steel LeMond was All That while I had it.

At the end of the day, go to a bunch of shops, ride a bunch of bikes, and see if you genuinely have a problem finding one to fit you.


----------



## expatbrit (Oct 16, 2013)

So. Thanks guys! I appreciate the input.

More later, but first --200cm tall. If I said mm, well -- there I go, typing without brain engaged!
6'7. Generally, short stubby legs (34" jeans), but the cycling inseam converts to 37.5". 
Disproportionately long arms and torso. 195lbs or so.

And yes, I guess I meant 'I'm not expecting a forum post to magically find me a bike', as opposed to 'a custom fitter can make me a bike from measurements'. Latter I can totally see.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (May 28, 2009)

That doesn't sound disproportionate at all. Bikes don't care if you wear your jeans low around your hips. I don't think that leaves room for a disproportionate torso... I've come to think long arms are a non-issue. The reason there are a bunch of bike sizes is to offer good handling to bigger people. Otherwise, we'd all ride 52s, and do all the adjustment with stems and seat posts. So the goal is to get something that can be set up to fit and that handles nicely. Anyway, I think it's about weight distribution. You should be able to get some sense of that when you ride - the bike that fits and feels best stock is likely the one that will set up best for you.

What are you comfortable spending? (That often settles a lot of things like frame material too.)


----------



## expatbrit (Oct 16, 2013)

Mmm. I dunno; most people 3-4" shorter than me have a similar inseam, but I guess it's close.

As to budget? 2k, stretching to more if I get excited. I don't think I'll find much below that, honestly, that I'll be 'happy' with, unless I luck into something large and used.

That seems to be low-end carbon, high end steel territory, I think?


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

expatbrit said:


> So. Thanks guys! I appreciate the input.
> 
> More later, but first --200cm tall. If I said mm, well -- there I go, typing without brain engaged!
> 6'7. Generally, short stubby legs (34" jeans), but the cycling inseam converts to 37.5".
> ...


I don't think you're disproportionate, but at 6'7" with a 37.5" inseam, you may well fall into a custom geo category. I wouldn't assume that and open my wallet for custom, though. First step is to get sizing requirements pinned down, letting the results dictate your path. 

With your budget, you could go custom if you _wanted_ to, but if you don't _need_ to, I wouldn't do it. Visit some shops, discuss your intended uses/ concerns and go from there.


----------



## expatbrit (Oct 16, 2013)

That's where I'm at! Visiting shops.

And surfing www sites!


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

expatbrit said:


> Mmm. I dunno; most people 3-4" shorter than me have a similar inseam, but I guess it's close.
> 
> As to budget? 2k, stretching to more if I get excited. I don't think I'll find much below that, honestly, that I'll be 'happy' with, unless I luck into something large and used.
> 
> That seems to be low-end carbon, high end steel territory, I think?


Because of your stature/ inseam, your options will be limited, which tends to dictate a need to increase your budget. 

As to frame materials, I think that too, will be dictated by what's available in XL sizes.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

expatbrit said:


> That's where I'm at! Visiting shops.
> 
> And surfing www sites!


The only thing surfing the web will do is tell you what manufacturers offer XL frames. Very generally speaking, I'm thinking 63-64cm. I know Trek and Specialized offer some models in those sizes, but I'm sure there are others.

Visiting reputable shops will get you an idea of your sizing requirements.


----------



## expatbrit (Oct 16, 2013)

Yeah. There's not a lot of XXL bikes around, and it seems that 63cm means very different things to very different manufacturers.

Hence the collecting stats, and reading reviews, I guess. Finding an XXL bike to ride is tricky.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

expatbrit said:


> Yeah. There's not a lot of XXL bikes around, and it seems that 63cm means very different things to very different manufacturers.
> 
> Hence the collecting stats, and reading reviews, I guess. Finding an XXL bike to ride is tricky.


You're right, frame sizing is arbitrary. I ride everything from a 47 to a 52 to a 54 depending on make/ model. Sometimes even the year of a model makes a difference.

And yes, finding large (or small) frame sizes in LBS's is difficult. They stock what sells quickly. But even without a bike, they can still assess your needs.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (May 28, 2009)

expatbrit said:


> Mmm. I dunno; most people 3-4" shorter than me have a similar inseam, but I guess it's close.
> 
> As to budget? 2k, stretching to more if I get excited. I don't think I'll find much below that, honestly, that I'll be 'happy' with, unless I luck into something large and used.
> 
> That seems to be low-end carbon, high end steel territory, I think?


You typically have to go out of your way to get steel. It's not obsolete, exactly. It's a kickass material and in my "real life," I design in steel a lot. But it doesn't have the strength-to-weight ratio of aluminum, let alone carbon, and automated manufacturing has made aluminum frames pretty cheap. So if you just walked into a shop and looked at $2000 bikes, you'd be looking at aluminum bikes with some carbon bits and carbon bikes.

Steel has an enduring popularity and some companies have gone out of their way to continue to offer some options in old-fashioned but beautiful constructions. So it's definitely out there if that's what you want, and you can certainly afford it.

Since you're not trying to do this for $100, my basic advice stays the same - go to some shops and ride some bikes. Since you need a big one, call ahead. You can probably save some trips, and a lot of shops are likely to have a couple large-framed bikes in stock but not built up; you give them a chance to be ready for you. Finally, as PJ says, it's certainly possible to get a bike sized without having an actual bike present. So that would be something to ask about while you're on the phone.


----------



## expatbrit (Oct 16, 2013)

AndrwSwitch said:


> You typically have to go out of your way to get steel. It's not obsolete, exactly. It's a kickass material and in my "real life," I design in steel a lot. But it doesn't have the strength-to-weight ratio of aluminum, let alone carbon, and automated manufacturing has made aluminum frames pretty cheap. So if you just walked into a shop and looked at $2000 bikes, you'd be looking at aluminum bikes with some carbon bits and carbon bikes.


I keep having people I know who ride tell me to stay away from aluminum, especially on crappier roads. I see above your comment on the fact that the bike is going to ride like it's made to ride, regardless of material, however.

This leads to one of the things that's frustrating me ( and that PJ commented on) -- it's like when I used to buy shoes, before bigger sizes were relatively common. You don't go into the shop and look at what they have. You go into the shop and say 'what's the largest pair of shoes you have', and then work from there to see what you can actually have. 




> Steel has an enduring popularity and some companies have gone out of their way to continue to offer some options in old-fashioned but beautiful constructions. So it's definitely out there if that's what you want, and you can certainly afford it.



As to high-end steel, I was thinking of things like a Gunnar (though I suspect that buit up, the bike will be more than $2000), the KHS Flite that people recommend big mooks like myself consider, and similar options. Effectively 'semi-custom/boutique'. Is that a reasonable place for that budget?

I want to do this right. There's no point in spending too little, and getting crap. If I can get away with less, it makes the purchase more reasonable.

If you were in my shoes -- new road rider, primarily fitness -- what's a 'smart' budget. $750 isn't going to get me much worth keeping, so I though I should head upwards from there.



> Since you're not trying to do this for $100, my basic advice stays the same - go to some shops and ride some bikes. Since you need a big one, call ahead. You can probably save some trips, and a lot of shops are likely to have a couple large-framed bikes in stock but not built up; you give them a chance to be ready for you. Finally, as PJ says, it's certainly possible to get a bike sized without having an actual bike present. So that would be something to ask about while you're on the phone.


I have visited a few shops already (like I said, my objective is to find the 'right' LBS) but I'm a paid professional paranoid. I HATE shopping for expensive things without at least some background knowledge on what I should be looking for, and why. At this point I'm just going on 'did you try and help me, or did you try and flog me something that you HAPPENED to have in stock and tell me it would work'. (I had one dealer stick me on a 61cm Roubaix and go 'looks fine'. Sadly, I have no idea if he's right or not)

The best advice I've got is 'ETT should be 620mm'. (Though they then sat me on a Guru with a 590mm ETT and said 'oh, that looks OK for you'). As Andrew said, it seems that ETT is the one that's 'hardest' to mess with in geometry -- seat tube is all about the seat post, the HT can be stretched with an angled stem (the 'slam it' fashio statement I've seen when surfing around be damned  ), and so on.

Hence back to the Internet stuff -- looking for various bikes with a long ETT so that I can poke around at reviews, comments, and then find the right dealer and so on and so forth.


----------



## expatbrit (Oct 16, 2013)

Added to the above:

I really appreciate the honest advice. I hate being in the position of not knowing enough to make smart choices, and it's nice to get some of those gaps filled in.


----------



## Red90 (Apr 2, 2013)

I feel your frustration. I was lucky enough to find a bike for myself when a friend sold me his. It happened to fit really well. Now I'm looking for a bike for my fiancee which is a much smaller stature.

The more I read about bike frames, physical dimensions and fit, the more I seem like I don't know anything. Each manufacture's sizing is completely different so you can't go by what a fit calculator tells you to a frame size a manufacture specifies.

I have not been able to find anything on the web that will tell you how to correlate body dimensions to stack, reach or ETT length. It would be nice if there is some reference guide that can tell you based upon your body dimensions of height, torso, inseam and arm length what ETT length or stack and reach one should be looking for. Furthermore, many of the manufacturers don't list the stack and reach of a bike and I'm not quite sure how to calculate it.

The common advice given is to go and ride a lot of different bikes and sizes to see which one feels good. While this is good advice, I prefer to narrow down the range of bikes to try. Especially for my fiancee who is likely an XS size in a bike, the number of bikes to try at a LBS is usually rather limited.


----------



## expatbrit (Oct 16, 2013)

And them I get a mail from an LBS Sbout a 63cm c'dale CAAD10 black di2 for $2100. Seems an insane price, and it's large.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

expatbrit said:


> And them I get a mail from an LBS Sbout a 63cm c'dale CAAD10 black di2 for $2100. Seems an insane price, and it's large.


Don't look a gift horse in the mouth. Go check out the bike. If nothing else, it'll give you an idea of your sizing requirements. My guess is it's going to be on the small side. Just how small is for their fitter to assess, with your input.


----------



## expatbrit (Oct 16, 2013)

Yeah. If it's there; I have a feeling it's at another store.
Local place had nothing bigger than a 61 last time. They're a chain


----------



## AndrwSwitch (May 28, 2009)

It's fashionable to trash-talk aluminum. It's the dominant frame material in the current market. If aluminum was the emerging technology and carbon had been mature for a while, people would say carbon bikes feel dead or sound weird or whatever and say poetic things about aluminum. I think it's impossible to have an intelligent conversation about frame material - it's a near-religious issue for many. In real life, I don't think it's that important. I inflate my tires to "my" pressure and go ride.

Go ride the Cannondale and see what you think.

At retail, I think $1500ish is a good bang-for-the-buck budget. It's high enough that most companies have stopped skimping on stuff like headsets and hubs, in general, and it gets you a pretty nice drivetrain. So with proper maintenance, it should be a bike you can go ride and not worry about. Spend more, get a lighter bike, get carbon, etc. Spend less, at retail, and you're more likely to run into disposable components.

One major problem with contemporary bikes is that bikes that look like racing bikes sell and racing bikes don't have a lot of tire clearance anymore. On crappier roads, a lot of people like fatter tires. In the winter, it's nice to be able to mount fenders. So if crappy roads are an issue for you, think about clearance.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

expatbrit said:


> I keep having people I know who ride tell me to stay away from aluminum, especially on crappier roads. I see above your comment on the fact that the bike is going to ride like it's made to ride, regardless of material, however.


All else being equal, I think alu rides rougher than a comparable steel or CF bike. Also IMO, alu's claim to fame is it's cheap and stiff, great attributes for someone on a budget and/ or getting into racing. 

With your budget (and possible need to look beyond off the shelf geo), I wouldn't advise you to disregard the material, but would focus more on steel and CF. 



expatbrit said:


> As to high-end steel, I was thinking of things like a Gunnar (though I suspect that buit up, the bike will be more than $2000), the KHS Flite that people recommend big mooks like myself consider, and similar options. Effectively 'semi-custom/boutique'. Is that a reasonable place for that budget?


I don't consider the KHS a boutique brand, but they do offer a couple of models in 66cm frames, which may well suite you. Even Gunnar is semi-boutique, but given your set of circumstances I don't think 'bling' matters as much as (as you say) doing this right and getting a bike that fits well. You could certainly get a KHS in your price range, and I even think you could build up a Gunnar for under your top end, just as long as you kept the priority on the frame/ sizing and not wheelsets/ componentry. They can be upgraded at a later date. 



expatbrit said:


> I have visited a few shops already (like I said, my objective is to find the 'right' LBS) but I'm a paid professional paranoid. I HATE shopping for expensive things without at least some background knowledge on what I should be looking for, and why. At this point I'm just going on 'did you try and help me, or did you try and flog me something that you HAPPENED to have in stock and tell me it would work'. (I had one dealer stick me on a 61cm Roubaix and go 'looks fine'. Sadly, I have no idea if he's right or not)


At some point, you're going to have to trust in a shop and their fitter. You simply cannot gather all the information you need to find the geo that's right for you without some experience, and that's why you're seeking out and possibly patronizing a LBS. 



expatbrit said:


> *The best advice I've got is 'ETT should be 620mm'*. (Though they then sat me on a Guru with a 590mm ETT and said 'oh, that looks OK for you'). As Andrew said, it seems that ETT is the one that's 'hardest' to mess with in geometry -- seat tube is all about the seat post, the HT can be stretched with an angled stem (the 'slam it' fashio statement I've seen when surfing around be damned  ), and so on.


But without having a baseline for comparison and without knowing your sizing requirements, how do you know this is good advice? It may well be, but I think it's too soon to know for sure.

The rest of what you offer is somewhat oversimplified. To a point, one can compensate for reach/ stack deficiencies, but stray too far from moderate stem lengths and angles and you start messing with f/r weight distribution. Stray far enough and handling suffers, so it's important to get sizing right.


----------



## expatbrit (Oct 16, 2013)

Thanks guys; I really appreciate all the advice. I was wishfully hoping for a magic formula, and resisting the test ride theory for its difficulty, but I hear you. Off to see what is in stock tomorrow, since my planned ride was just cut (very) short by a roofing nail.thorn proof tubes don't quite block that.


----------



## expatbrit (Oct 16, 2013)

Update; (self-indulgent time)

Stopped by the shop we bought my girls Splice at and looked at some bikes the had there. One was a custom steel, and was too big (!). Built for long legs, short torso, and I am the reverse. Tried a 63 they had, and it was (as predicted) too small, with a LOT of drop. 

The shopping continues. 

They're a KHS tandem dealer, and we looked at numbers on the 747. Looks promising, but I have to wait.

(And I guess, yes -- KHS isn't boutique. The 747 is pretty specialized, however)

Again, thanks for all the guidance. This will be a process!


----------



## AndrwSwitch (May 28, 2009)

I get the impression that the head tubes on larger bikes don't grow as fast as they should. Don't worry overmuch about the amount of drop unless the stem's already at the top of its spacer stack and flipped up. There are +35 degree stems available if you need it.

Don't plunk down the credit card either if you're not sure that some combination of stem angle and spacer arrangement will get you comfortable.


----------



## expatbrit (Oct 16, 2013)

It was, honestly, to help them fit me and talk about what bikes would help. 

Haven't found anything to buy, yet.


----------



## expatbrit (Oct 16, 2013)

So. Spent some time on a trainer, at (another) LBS, on a bike I was /sure/ wouldn't work for me.

Specialized Tarmac, 61cm. Both the fitter and I thought it would be way, WAY small, (until we chatted a little about arm length and relative leg/torso size) but it was a quiet time and they were /really/ willing to work with me. Slung an adjustable stem on the Tarmac, stood it on the trainer, and tweaked it out.

Interestingly, the extra drop was good. When he lifted the stem higher, it ended up with tension between by shoulders. When he lengthened the stem, by hands WANTED to be shorter.

Turns out the bike, as stock, with a 110mm stem (at least on a trainer) seemed to work for me. Raising the bars seemed, at least on a cursory inspection, to work worse for me. 

Really interesting experience. Really interesting time at the shop. I'm finding a lot of ones I like here in town as I shop around.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (May 28, 2009)

Did you get to try the bike on the road?

In a world with lots of stem lengths, the reason to have a lot of frame sizes is to maintain the right weight distribution for good handling.

110 mm is a pretty normal size, some say the best, so that's promising.


----------



## expatbrit (Oct 16, 2013)

AndrwSwitch said:


> Did you get to try the bike on the road?


No, I somewhat swung by on a whim, since they are the only KHS dealer n town and I was pretty convinced from previous conversations at another shop that I'd need a Flite 747. It was late, then it was dark, and not the best time on the road. 

They did say to come back another day and try it. Nice folks, which goes a long way, and willing to invest a lot of time even with me starting out with 'not buying until after Xmas'

I'll probably try when I'm back from FL to get there earlier, and take out the Tarmac. Probably go the Trek store and take a hard look at a cheaper Madone or Domane as well, if I can fit well onto a 62cm frame.



> In a world with lots of stem lengths, the reason to have a lot of frame sizes is to maintain the right weight distribution for good handling.
> 
> 110 mm is a pretty normal size, some say the best, so that's promising.


Makes sense.


----------



## expatbrit (Oct 16, 2013)

For those following (or who might find this) I've been amazed at the range of bike shops, and the quality. Finally think I've found one I really like, for several key reasons.

Fitter willing to spend a LOT of time with me, including setting bikes on trainers and playing with stems while I am telling him not until Xmas.

Good advice, and willing to take a risk in ordering a bike in a larger size IF necessary, without charging and then only giving shop credit.

Want me out on an extended road ride as a test; going Monday for some riding if the snow stops.

Also, the advice in this thread is bang on. Thanks to PJ and Andrew. It seems that -- at 6'7 -- I can fit frames from 56cm (Ridley) to 61cm (Specialized), and the truly big frames and big head tubes I thought is need actually make me less comfy. I'm frankly amazed at the sizing.

I've visited a lot of shops, and some are good but don't seem to 'fit' bikes well. Some just look at WWW pages and go 'they say a 6'7 rider needs a 63cm', and don't even know the brand no longer makes a 63cm! I tried chains, with mixed results. (On paper, Performance Bike and the Fuji Altamira looked good, for instance)

However, I'm really impressed with High Desert Bicycles. If we can find a bike they sell that fits me, I am there. Really good people.

So. The plan is to ride the Tarmac, the X-Fire, and a Roubaix. Hopefully one will be awesome.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

Judging from your post, I think you've learned quite a lot about just what separates a really good shop from the merely average.. or sub par shops. Since you now have the shop picked out, you'll better your odds of success purchasing that 'right bike' (for you), and you're looking at some fine choices, IMO. 

Let us know how the test rides go!


----------



## 9W9W (Apr 5, 2012)

expatbrit said:


> So. The plan is to ride the Tarmac, the X-Fire, and a Roubaix. Hopefully one will be awesome.


I'm curious to read your post ride notes on the Tarmac vs Roubaix.


----------



## expatbrit (Oct 16, 2013)

PJ352 said:


> Judging from your post, I think you've learned quite a lot about just what separates a really good shop from the merely average.. or sub par shops. Since you now have the shop picked out, you'll better your odds of success purchasing that 'right bike' (for you), and you're looking at some fine choices, IMO.
> 
> Let us know how the test rides go!


I think I read it here; as much as 'shopping for bikes' I was 'shopping for shops'. That certainly became more apparent once I realized I wasn't just looking at 'XXL' frames, and my unusual build meant I could fit smaller and more aggressive, despite my height. (And with relatively minimal tweaking; no crazy stems, no slammed back seats. Bike fitting is not a numbers game!)

I'm looking forward to test riding. Really hoping it breaks freezing and the 60mph wind gusts and snow subside, however. That might impact the experience.


----------



## expatbrit (Oct 16, 2013)

So. Snow melted in the valley, warmed up to a balmy 42 degrees. So I stuck on a softshell jacket, the softshell pants I wore up Kili and went off to test ride.

The Roubaix was at their second shop, so today was a Tarmac SL3 (I think), with a mostly 105 group in 61cm, and a disk Ridley X-Fire in 56cm with Ultegra. To get my reach, the fitter had a 130mm stem on the latter, the stock 110mm one he former. 23mm slicks vs 33mm cross tyres. Not exactly apples to apples, though both bikes weighed in at pretty much the same; 20.4 lbs vs 30.6, pedals and all

Sadly my Tarmac ride was cut short when the left pedal fell off (!) as I accelerated. Stand over clearance was tested, and is not an issue!

Fit wise, the riding position on both was damn close. Nothing to choose on the shortish 5 mile ride. Speed wise, the same -- according to Strava. With long arms and torso, I /like/ a lot of saddle to bar drop. Tall head tubes and saddles make me ache in short order between the shoulder blades. Fitter states that torso angle trumps a lot; you can adjust it, but mostly people shift around and strain other parts until they 'learn' a different position.

There was, however, a world of difference in feel. With a sharper geo, shorter stem, and narrow tyres the Tarmac felt twitchy. Every bump showed up . Just like my superbike, it was committed and commanded my attention -- relax a moment and you were somewhere you didn't mean or want to be. The 'cross bike gave a bit more room to 'ride', not 'race'. It wasn't any slower for me, but it was a LOT smoother, the more so on some cracked and split pavement.

Climbing standing broke the Tarmac (ooops !), and the Ridley was ... Awkward. It didn't want to accelerate straight, and levered all over the place. Maybe that's me being used to giant wide MTB bars, maybe it's the high bottom bracket. Not a deal breaker, but odd.

I'm drawn to the Ridley. It's in my favourite colour combo, it has disk brakes, it's 'unusual'. It's also not a dedicated road bike, for better and worse.

Going to try and ride the Roubaix tomorrow. Local Trek store also has a CAAD10 in 63 cm, and a Domane 4.5 in 62cm. On a trainer, I had to slam the stem and flip it (!) on the latter to feel comfy.

Both -- and the Tarmac -- are in budget. The Ridley is more, but doable. I was kinda hoping I'd hate it and go no, but it's interesting to me.


----------



## expatbrit (Oct 16, 2013)

Oh. And both Ultegra and 105 shift better than he X7 on my X-cal. Ultegra was incredibly smooth. Really, really nice. 105 was damn near as good, though the (much) higher geared Tarmac was shifted less. Given my terrain -- and strength-- I suspect I'd want a compact crank on the Tarmac for climbing.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

Interesting rider impressions, thanks for posting. Given your riding experience, none of what you wrote surprised me much. Once up to cruising speed, most any bike will keep relatively the same speed given the same rider and similar conditions. Where differences surface is in the _handling_ of the bikes, as you described quite well.

I ride a Tarmac and your right, lose focus and the line can change rather quickly. I suspect that you'll find the CAAD 10 similar to the Tarmac, with Roubaix and Domane somewhere in the middle of the Tarmac and Ridley, but we'll see. 

One thing about test rides.. they cut through all the specs and research we all do and whittle the choices rather quickly.


----------



## expatbrit (Oct 16, 2013)

They do. And the Tarmac strikes me as exactly what it looks like; a race bike. Handling required, focus required. Just have to decide what ride you want -- race (motor)bikes aren't easy to pootle around on, even a less high strung one and I feel bikes are very similar.

Not a bad thing at all, and I'll ride it again -- a bit longer, this time, assuming I don't lose another pedal. (That was momentarily exciting).

It'll be interesting to try the Roubaix, for sure. As you say, with the ~1000 miles I've put in this year, there are nuances I bet I am missing, and lots of them.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (May 28, 2009)

Is your X-Cal all X7, or a mix? My new mountain bike is a mix, with X7 shifters and the X9 rear derailleur. That shift is as reliable as my 105 bike ever was and my Tiagraish bike is. I do think Shimano tends to be a bit smoother, but your mountain bike shouldn't be letting these bikes blow it away. Do you take care of it?

I've found that tires have a big effect on handling feel. Actually, that's one of the things I got a kick out of when I first tried 23s. It's too bad you can't try the Tarmac with a 25 or 28 or the Ridley with a 23. I bet it would narrow the difference between the bikes.

If the Ridley's pushing your budget, look at what you'd give up moving to the next lower model. Sometimes it's something that's not that important to the ride feel. Maybe just moving down a drivetrain spec. Sometimes you can't. But, certainly worth a couple minutes on their web site.


----------



## expatbrit (Oct 16, 2013)

A large part of the draw to a cross bike is easily running larger tires. I'm solidly Clyde like, and close on 200lbs, so it's nice to have options

Next step down is 105, not Ultegra. Not much, but this is a left over, so that spec is damn near as much, plus the store (who've done a good job of working with me) isn't carrying the 2014. I could get it on-line, but I hate the storefronting game. I'd like to support a truly local LBS.


----------



## expatbrit (Oct 16, 2013)

Oh. Yeah. And I lose the black/yellow colour scheme I like so much. . 

Bike colour is important, right?????


----------



## expatbrit (Oct 16, 2013)

Andrew, PJ -- I can't thank you both enough for your insight and bringing experience to help temper my enthusiasm and cluelessness. 

If I can ask one more question -- given the crappy roads will I regret a 'cross bike? My heart says 'no', but it's a lot of money!


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

expatbrit said:


> Andrew, PJ -- I can't thank you both enough for your insight and bringing experience to help temper my enthusiasm and cluelessness.
> 
> If I can ask one more question -- *given the crappy roads will I regret a 'cross bike? *My heart says 'no', but it's a lot of money!


If your roads are that crappy, I'd think the opposite may be true, NOT going with a CX bike may be something you'd regret. 

FWIW, I run 25c's on my Tarmac and am careful to tailor tire pressures to my weight (light), riding style (light) and road conditions (generally, good). Even running 28c's that a Roubaix would accommodate, IMO there's little question that a CX bike capable of running a wider tire wouldn't provide a more comfortable ride than either, while giving up little in performance. They're versatile bikes (more so than road bikes), so IMO a viable option worth considering. 

Just ride a few of each type (preferably on the roads you'll be riding) before deciding.


----------



## expatbrit (Oct 16, 2013)

AndrwSwitch said:


> Is your X-Cal all X7, or a mix? My new mountain bike is a mix, with X7 shifters and the X9 rear derailleur. That shift is as reliable as my 105 bike ever was and my Tiagraish bike is. I do think Shimano tends to be a bit smoother, but your mountain bike shouldn't be letting these bikes blow it away. Do you take care of it?


All X7. I clean it and poke at it; it just seems to not always want to shift on certain rings. I've tried tweaking the tension, and had the shop who sold it me look at it and it's better, but it still doesn't seem as 'smooth' as the Shimano was. It's supposed to be roughly 105 equivalent too, right?



> I've found that tires have a big effect on handling feel. Actually, that's one of the things I got a kick out of when I first tried 23s. It's too bad you can't try the Tarmac with a 25 or 28 or the Ridley with a 23. I bet it would narrow the difference between the bikes.


In terms of 'twitchiness'? I figured in terms of feel and road absorption, based on my reading on here.

The shop rather wants to sell the Ridley (if their 56 fits a 6'7 rider, there aren't THAT many customers for it), but they seem really honest and most interested in having a happy customer than selling one moderately expensive bike.


----------



## expatbrit (Oct 16, 2013)

Typical roads are cracked, a bit frost heaved in places, and lots of chip seal. Certainly not a nice glassy surface that encourages 125 psi on a 23mm tyre, at least IMO. I see a lot of folks doing it though, so I'm probably just a bit of a wuss. 

I ride MUPs as well, and those aren't any better.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (May 28, 2009)

People can be real masochists about tire pressure at times. Or just under-informed. I inflated to 120 psi for a long time. Now I go to 95. It's a much smoother ride for me, but I weigh 155 lb right now and am on my way back to 140-145. Knowing what I know now, I don't know if I'd put myself on a tire I had to inflate to over 100 psi on purpose. So if you're a wuss, so am I. And we're even faster for it. 

I don't really play the SRAM/Shimano equivalence game. Frankly, once Shimano hits Deore and Tiagra, I can barely feel a difference stepping up. Though I think as a manufacturer, Shimano has chain rings nailed. So you may not be able to get a front shift as good from your SRAM MTB. I just don't think it should be worse on the cassette.

Since switching to a 'cross bike full-time and getting it some nicer brakes, I don't see any disadvantage in practice. Maybe in a wind tunnel, but if I don't have a sponsor that cares, I don't either.


----------



## expatbrit (Oct 16, 2013)

On the MTB, it's the rear that doesn't shift quite right. I'll dig thru' the boxes of books and find my Zinn and the Art of Mountain Bike Maintenance and see what I can see. 

Today's test ride was a Roubaix; 61 cm, SL3 elite. Compact gearing, weighing in at damn near the same as the Tarmac and X-Fire. All 3 are a hair over 20lbs.

The ride and handling was night and day from the twitchy Tarmac, possibly even slower handling than the 'cross bike. Not in a bad way, but it would turn with intent, not with a thought. The geometry differences shone thru, and even on 25mm tyres it did fine on the minor irregularities of the fairly good tarmac by the LBS. 

Genuinely impressive bike. We didn't drop the front to where I am comfy, so I spent the whole 20m test ride in the drops, pretty much. It was definitely easier to ride than the Tarmac, for me. Less so than the Ridley.

It's also the same price as the left over Ridley, and has cheaper components. I see why so many people -- my brother included -- love that bike. I think I still like the 'cross bike, but it's a close run thing.

Next up, I hope, a Domane 4.5.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (May 28, 2009)

parktool.com is a good resource too.

Good luck with the continuing test rides.

You'll have to try some MTB trails once you can return that bike to an off-road setup.


----------



## expatbrit (Oct 16, 2013)

Thanks for the reference; I'll take a look -- sure it's just either a bit out or needs more cleaning.

And it'll be nice to get back on the trails. Lots of good stuff around here that I used to ride. Maybe not in the snow and ice, but still....


----------



## expatbrit (Oct 16, 2013)

Well. I took a spin on my own bike, and really paid attention to the shifters. Mostly, they're fine. If I a bit hesitant with a shift, it may hang up, and if I get lazy and cross chained, it gets a bit shirty. I suppose an 11-36 cassette is going to dislike being in 44 and anywhere near the 36.

Just need to be more willing to use my 33 ring, and not consider it a sign of weakness.


----------



## expatbrit (Oct 16, 2013)

I guess I can wildly thread jack my own bike selection thread, right?


----------



## expatbrit (Oct 16, 2013)

Ok.

Trusted the fitter /and/ the LBS I really like had a huge sale. The (tough looking black and yellow) X-Fire followed me home, with a set of 28mm Gatorskins and Shimano SPD-SL pedals. 

Too dark now for a first ride except to spin around the block. It's a lot light than the X-Cal...


----------



## junior1210 (May 2, 2013)

You know the drill, pics or........


----------



## expatbrit (Oct 16, 2013)

Mm. Pics. Yes. When there is daylight!


----------



## AndrwSwitch (May 28, 2009)

Sounds like a couple good lights might be in order. Though I think road riding in a moist climate gets a little sketchy below freezing...


----------



## expatbrit (Oct 16, 2013)

AndrwSwitch said:


> Sounds like a couple good lights might be in order. Though I think road riding in a moist climate gets a little sketchy below freezing...


NM isn't precisely moist; the temperature just drops hard after dark. Add that to not great drivers and it's not my favourite time to ride, new Ridley or not.

I have a Cygolite Metro 360 and a Hotshot, though, so I'm not completely out after dark. Got them on the new ride this evening, while finding another broken spoke in the Trek.


----------



## expatbrit (Oct 16, 2013)

Of course.

I comment on the lack of moisture -- and wake up to snow.


----------



## expatbrit (Oct 16, 2013)

And . . . decision made, maiden 'voyage' taken, for the values of maiden voyage, and it's own thread.

Gone Euro...


----------

