# MotoBecane frame set good, Bad?



## karlmichael

Does anyone know anything about this brand? Their prices seem to good to be true but they have a nice warrenty...any advice..... Im looking for a frame set to build up with my old 6600 group and wheelset.



http://www.bikesdirect.com/products/motobecane/immortalspirit_frameonly.htm


kalr


----------



## thesmokingman

Saves you the chance of getting ripped off by an ebayer from China...


----------



## divest

That frame looks way better in person. Saw a guy with it the other week and I was very impressed on how it looked in person, much more high end. Made me consider getting the frame.


----------



## bike_guy

This is gonna be fun


----------



## backinthesaddle

bike_guy said:


> This is gonna be fun


Why? It is because the bike snob jackasses on here have a pre-conceived notion of BikesDirect and the Moto frames? 

Funny that people do, even though they've seen the frames/bikes, nor dealt with BD. Even funnier that those same dumbasses ride frames that were likely made in the same factory as the Motos, but paid 2x-3x more because they have different decals on them.

Like I said, dumbasses...


----------



## Nic_K.

I believe Kinesis makes thier frames and they also produce frames for the following brands:

Brands manufactured by Kinesis include Diamondback, Felt Bicycles, GT Bicycles, Schwinn, Jamis, K2, Raleigh, Trek, and Kona — as well as the brands marketed by the U.S. company Bikesdirect.com: Motobecane USA, Dawes USA, Cycles Mercier, Windsor America.


----------



## bike_guy

backinthesaddle said:


> Why? It is because the bike snob jackasses on here have a pre-conceived notion of BikesDirect and the Moto frames?


To an extent yes, but both sides of the argument have good points. I don't have a horse in this race (I ride a custom steel frame and don't in fit any of the categories you described), but these questions always in the same never ending argument.


----------



## tigeo

My riding buddy just bought a Moto Vent Noir. I have looked at these bikes and almost bought one myself but went ebay/used instead to save some money. I used to be a shop wrench so I helped him assemble it. These bikes are very nice and at the same quality level of any other bikes I have built at a shop. They come the very same way - partially assembled and needing adjustments etc. After seeing his/riding it, I would buy one without hesitation. The price savings however isn't quite what they lead you to believe through their marketing; A similar Trek with Tiagra shifters/f. derailer and a 105 rear isn't going to cost much more than a $1000 at a LBS; the Vent is $700. The $300 is a reasonable savings but you are on your own with assembly and customer service. The frame is welded beautifully. These are a great alternative for some people that don't require the advice/sizing/after sale service a LBS offers. It also doesn't appeal to brand snobs..which I make no judgment on...I have been there too!


----------



## WaynefromOrlando

I've been riding an Immortal Pro since last January and I have zero complaints with the frame or how it was built. I say go for it.


----------



## seppo17

I rode and raced an immortal force for two years. No complaints, I changed frames for one with a taller head tube. The head tube on my 56 measures 135mm.


----------



## cyclesport45

I have an Immortal Ice, 56 cm. It's ywo and a bit years old, has 9800 miles on it. The frame rides good as new. No complaints from this 210 pound clydsdale sprinter type.

PS. Got bumped by a STOOPID SUV driver who ran a stop sign this spring. The bumper whacked into my chainstay on drivetrain side, spun me around. End result? Bruised paint at point of impact. That's it.


----------



## WheresWaldo

thesmokingman said:


> Saves you the chance of getting ripped off by an ebayer from China...


Frame is made by ADK in Taiwan, not China. It is an open mold that was used a few years ago by another Euro bike manufacturer. ADK is also the same factory some of the first Pedal Force frames came from.


----------



## dahut

tigeo said:


> My riding buddy just bought a Moto Vent Noir. I have looked at these bikes and almost bought one myself but went ebay/used instead to save some money. I used to be a shop wrench so I helped him assemble it. These bikes are very nice and at the same quality level of any other bikes I have built at a shop. They come the very same way - partially assembled and needing adjustments etc. After seeing his/riding it, I would buy one without hesitation. The price savings however isn't quite what they lead you to believe through their marketing; A similar Trek with Tiagra shifters/f. derailer and a 105 rear isn't going to cost much more than a $1000 at a LBS; the Vent is $700. The $300 is a reasonable savings but you are on your own with assembly and customer service. The frame is welded beautifully. These are a great alternative for some people that don't require the advice/sizing/after sale service a LBS offers. It also doesn't appeal to brand snobs..which I make no judgment on...I have been there too!


Thanks for that. 

It IS noteworthy that most bikes come from the same factories. Some will say the Moto's are generic and the name brands are "specially designed" - then built in the same factory. But as you say, I've not seen enough evidence of that to be convincing. And as Walso implies above, your bike just might come from any direction, or source.

The one thing these bikes won't have is a Trek's resale value. A similar Trek, for example, is likely to hold its value somewhat better, simply for the name. That wont matter so much if you plan to ride the paint off the Motobecane... and it will resell for an amount that reflects its original price.
But if you are a bike trader, then I reckon name matters. That 'aint so much a snob thing as a reality.

I'd buy one.


----------



## davev1954

I bought the Motobecane Immortal Spirit w/D/A (couple years ago). Great bike, and I ride the heck out of it. Other than a dumb name, it is a great ride. The carbon frame set is as good as any for twice the price.

https://farm3.static.flickr.com/2313/2329134459_32eeb767df_o.jpg


----------



## Poppadaddio

*Why buy a just frame?*

Just buy the complete bike all put together from BD with NEW Dura-Ace or Ultegra 6700 and put your old 6600 components on a rain bike.


----------



## Wicked2006

I'm so considering getting this bike. I don't see myself spending $1600 on a name brand frame. From what I've read on this frame it's a great frame. Is it really that good?


----------



## MTBAlex

Been riding my immortal force for a tad over two years too and no complaints. I did change the pedals, wheels and seat though. The wheels that is came with was pretty good. But I had another set so I am using those.


----------



## Wicked2006

First of all I'm 5'9 or maybe 5'10 on a good day. I'm currently riding a 56cm frame. I'm really thinking of moving down to a 54cm for comfort and more relax feel. 

On my 56cm I don't as comfortable as I would feel on a 54cm frame. I've ridden 54cm and felt pretty in control.


----------



## bobthib

I got the yellow Immortal Pro 56 cm (I'm 6'0") in May 09 and I've never looked back. It's not the lightest frame available, but it is a great frame for the price. You will not regret it. Note that the fork is not included.

In August 09 I was stopped at a light and pulled a hanky out of my rear pocket to wipe my brow. Unbeknownst to me a small glass cleaner rag fell out on my chain. It got sucked into my RD and snapped the RD off and slammed it into the frame.










At first I thought I had a warranty issue until I determined the problem was the rag I dropped in the chain. I called BD and the owner, Mike, called me personally. They have a feame warranty, but it's not much better than buying the frame online. But he did say that he felt the damage was only superficial and that I should coat it with clear nail polish and watch for cracks. That was a year ago, and it has about 4k miles with no problems.

I'm not a early adopter. I would rather buy proven technology at a good price than overpay for the unproven cutting edge. Witness the Iphone 4.

This frame is proven. It is a steal at the price. You won't regret it unless you want a 900 gm frame. And got the bucks to pay for it.


----------



## aaronis31337

Kinesis only makes some of the aluminum frames. Their carbon is limited.


----------



## tonkabaydog

dahut said:


> .
> 
> The one thing these bikes won't have is a Trek's resale value. A similar Trek, for example, is likely to hold its value somewhat better, simply for the name.
> 
> I'd buy one.


Resale value? If you buy a Trek with Ultegra for $3K and sell it for $1500 4 years later that is a 50% depreciation... not to mention the time value of money. If you buy a BD bike, say a Le Champion CF ltd with Ultegra for $1500 you will likely get at least $1000. roughly 30% depreciation. 

How do I know? I purchased a Mercier Serpens AL for $1100 with full ultegra 5 years ago and sold a few weeks back for $770........do the math. ONLY 30% depreciation. Try that with a TREK or ANY Branded bike. Time makes the brand less relavant on resale value versus components!

You see as bikes age, frames become less relevant. IMHO.

But if you want to go spent +$3K for an Ultegra TREK, Cervelo, BH, Ridley, Specialized or Cannondale..........Knock yourself out.


----------



## Local Hero

Even if the percent depreciated is the same the argument is a non-starter due to the lower initial cost of the bike. 

For example:

Initial cost: $2500. Resale value: $1000. Total spent: *$1500*.
Initial cost: $1250. Resale value: $500. Total spent: *$750.* 

If the two bikes are equivalent in terms of performance, looks, etc (or even roughly equivalent), any resale value arguments don't get off the ground. 


I was trying to explain this to a friend the other day. He asked what I'm going to do if a motobecane frame cracks after two years. I said that I'll just buy another one. If they warranty the frames and will replace my frame for cost ($400?) I can go through two or three of them before they add up to the price of a single Trek or Fuji frame.


----------



## 18usc371

Actually, I think the resale values are way over optimistic. I think that $3K bike will be less than $1K in 2-3 years - especially carbon. Both big companies and Shimano not only turn over their line often, they spend a lot of time explaining how their new tech is so superior to the old tech - which is just what they were pushing the year before as the latest and greatest. Ebay is littered with "old" carbon that was $3K new and unsold $1K. Even Ti only holds 33%.

Also, consider what you could do with the saved money. Assuming you could afford the $3K bike in the first place, you could by the $1.5K bike and do a whole heck of a lot with the extra $1.5K you didn't spend.

Cycling (as a cost thing) is a losing proposition, like buying a computer. Buy it, enjoy it, don't worry about resale. It will be worthless (to someone else) in a few years, but you will have the value of the good times and fitness on it.


----------



## swidd

Yup.. unless your car gets 10mpg, I don't see how anyone can save money bicycling on fine modern bicycles.


----------



## WaynefromOrlando

Swidd, I did the math and here is what I came up with:

Cost to commute by car 7-8 miles rt (15 miles) per trip: $5-$6 ea. (car gets 25-27mph on city streets)
Bike commute 2x per week savings: $10-$12 per week
Yearly savings at 2x per week: $520-$624
Cost of a ready to commute Motobecane Jubilee Deluxe: $349.95 plus $50 for lights and pannier from Nashbar=$400
Savings in year 1: $120-$224, Savings in year 2 and on: $520-$624

How Much Can I Save Bicycling to Work?


----------



## swidd

Well if you twist the numbers that way =)

My car gets 42MPG, is paid off and costs $30/month to insure. No tolls, no parking fees. 25 mile commute makes the daily expense $2.20. 

Buying a Motobecane Immortal Fire for $1,895, as I'm hoping to do, will take 2.42 years to break even, not counting maintenance, tire replacement and extra food costs. 

With my current Trek hybrid that I paid $650 for, I haven't even started "paying for the bicycle", as every week I end up spending money on something: fixing derailleur cables, new tires, fixing flats, clicking sounds, helmet, flashing rear light as it is getting dark outside, fenders, new pedals for clip less, bike shoes, bike shorts with padding, butt cream, laundry three times as often, air pump, tool to cut the cable wires, special wrench to tighten the bottom bracket, chain cleaner, new chain, oil and lubricants, brake caliper adjustment, replacing broken spoke and whatnot. 

I'm not *****ing, just saying, it is not necessarily cheaper to bicycle.


----------



## Local Hero

Swidd, you left out the initial costs of the vehicle and the higher costs of vehicle maintenance.


----------



## swidd

Local Hero said:


> Swidd, you left out the initial costs of the vehicle and the higher costs of vehicle maintenance.


Yeah, oops forgot about that.


----------



## sgalante

Swidd, not to mention the depreciation on your car. 

I had the same thoughts when it came to buy a newer car. My brother who was in the car business convinced me, that it would be cheaper to buy a new/used car and have payments, then it was to keep my old beater. (Not saying your car is a beater). I told him, "but I don't have car payments". His response was that between the depreciation in the car, and the cost of repairs, I could pretty much be driving a much newer car (if not a new one) for about what it was costing me to drive my 8 year old car. I never thought about the fact that I paid 12,000 used for the car when it was 2 years old (it was awhile ago), and 6 years later it was worth about 2,000. When you take into account the 10,000 depreciation along with the $100/month I was spending on upkeep and repairs, my car was actually costing me about $240/month. Just about what my next car cost me per month for a lease, and I was driving a new car every 3 years, and the only thing I had to pay for was gas. Even my oil changes and road side assistance was covered in my payment.


----------



## Smirob

You Also forgot to factor in the health benefits cycling will provide.


----------



## RickJP

Hello all!

I'm looking at my first road bike in 30 + years (my parents bought me a KIA when I was 17 that I ditched in Daytona Beach while in flight school in the '80's), and I've pretty much narrowed it down between the Windsor Falkirk and the Moto Super Strada. Both have the same Sram Apex components.

From what I read on this forum, the Moto has a good track record. However, the warranty on the Windsor is also quite attractive (lifetime frame and 5 yr component warranty), notwithstanding that the bike itself is good looking too. I am, however, aware that warranty alone should not be the deciding factor, so I'm curious whether anyone has a preference between these two and why?

Thanks!!!


----------



## RickJP

RickJP said:


> Hello all!
> 
> I'm looking at my first road bike in 30 + years (my parents bought me a KIA when I was 17 that I ditched in Daytona Beach while in flight school in the '80's), and I've pretty much narrowed it down between the Windsor Falkirk and the Moto Super Strada. Both have the same Sram Apex components.
> 
> From what I read on this forum, the Moto has a good track record. However, the warranty on the Windsor is also quite attractive (lifetime frame and 5 yr component warranty), notwithstanding that the bike itself is good looking too. I am, however, aware that warranty alone should not be the deciding factor, so I'm curious whether anyone has a preference between these two and why?
> 
> Thanks!!!


FWIW, I test rode a Felt F95 and a Z6 over the weekend. Loved the geometry of both, but didn't care about the Tiagra/Sora 9 speed cassette of the F95, and didn't want to pay $1,500.00 for the Z6. Went to order the Super Strada, but Bikesdirect was sold out of it (my size didn't even say low stock, but it was sold out and the ones where it said low stock, were in stock; go figure!!). Decided against the Windsor, as it is only available in black and I intend to ride after work during the week (at night). So I called the LBS where I test rode the Felts and had them order me an F85, with the 105 drive train. It should be here by week's end and if Hurricane Irene leaves South Florida alone, I'll probably do 20 miles on it on Saturday. Let's see......


----------



## amadeus303

RickJP said:


> Hello all!
> 
> I'm looking at my first road bike in 30 + years (my parents bought me a KIA when I was 17 that I ditched in Daytona Beach while in flight school in the '80's), and I've pretty much narrowed it down between the Windsor Falkirk and the Moto Super Strada. Both have the same Sram Apex components.
> 
> From what I read on this forum, the Moto has a good track record. However, the warranty on the Windsor is also quite attractive (lifetime frame and 5 yr component warranty), notwithstanding that the bike itself is good looking too. I am, however, aware that warranty alone should not be the deciding factor, so I'm curious whether anyone has a preference between these two and why?
> 
> Thanks!!!


I'm torn between the same two... and like you, I can't seem to make up my mind. The differences, as I've been able to determine are as follows:

- Falkirk uses 6061 aluminum vs SS's 7005 (according to most, the difference is negligible)
- Falkirk uses carbon "aero" fork vs SS's carbon straight blade (I would venture the straight blade has the less dampened feel between the two, but better road "feel")
- Falkirk has a shorter top tube than the SS (in a size 52, which I'm looking at, the Falkirk has a 530mm TT while the SS has a 535mm TT)
- Falkirk has a smaller seat tube angle (in a size 52, the Falkirk is 73* while the SS is 74*)

I haven't been able to find a listed weight for the Falkirk, but the Super Strada is < 20 lbs. according to the specs. If I had to try to sum up the comparison (in my VERY novice words), I'd say the SS is the slightly more aggressive bike of the two, and that the Falkirk is probably the more comfortable for longer rides.

For the marginal difference, honestly, I think it really comes down to which bike do you think looks better...

But I'm still torn.

Can anyone else comment?


----------



## amadeus303

sgalante said:


> Swidd, not to mention the depreciation on your car.
> 
> I had the same thoughts when it came to buy a newer car. My brother who was in the car business convinced me, that it would be cheaper to buy a new/used car and have payments, then it was to keep my old beater. (Not saying your car is a beater). I told him, "but I don't have car payments". His response was that between the depreciation in the car, and the cost of repairs, I could pretty much be driving a much newer car (if not a new one) for about what it was costing me to drive my 8 year old car. I never thought about the fact that I paid 12,000 used for the car when it was 2 years old (it was awhile ago), and 6 years later it was worth about 2,000. When you take into account the 10,000 depreciation along with the $100/month I was spending on upkeep and repairs, my car was actually costing me about $240/month. Just about what my next car cost me per month for a lease, and I was driving a new car every 3 years, and the only thing I had to pay for was gas. Even my oil changes and road side assistance was covered in my payment.


I'm not criticizing --- we all make decisions that fit our situation... but I just wanted to comment. If we were talking about accounting, I'd tend to agree with your reasoning... but depreciation doesn't involve cash with a "beater", unless you always planned to trade-in, sell privately, etc. Ultimately, a fully depreciated car that runs is still worth more to the owner than what the "book" says it's worth. Repairs really are one-off expenses. If repairs start to exceed the value of the car, then sure... it makes sense to move onto something else.


----------



## RickJP

amadeus303 said:


> I'm torn between the same two... and like you, I can't seem to make up my mind. The differences, as I've been able to determine are as follows:
> 
> - Falkirk uses 6061 aluminum vs SS's 7005 (according to most, the difference is negligible)
> - Falkirk uses carbon "aero" fork vs SS's carbon straight blade (I would venture the straight blade has the less dampened feel between the two, but better road "feel")
> - Falkirk has a shorter top tube than the SS (in a size 52, which I'm looking at, the Falkirk has a 530mm TT while the SS has a 535mm TT)
> - Falkirk has a smaller seat tube angle (in a size 52, the Falkirk is 73* while the SS is 74*)
> 
> I haven't been able to find a listed weight for the Falkirk, but the Super Strada is < 20 lbs. according to the specs. If I had to try to sum up the comparison (in my VERY novice words), I'd say the SS is the slightly more aggressive bike of the two, and that the Falkirk is probably the more comfortable for longer rides.
> 
> For the marginal difference, honestly, I think it really comes down to which bike do you think looks better...
> 
> But I'm still torn.
> 
> Can anyone else comment?


I would definitely concur. 

Thanks for your comment!!


----------



## amadeus303

RickJP said:


> I concur.
> 
> As it turns out, I went this last weekend to one of the many LBSs in my area and test rode a Felt Z5, Z6, and an F95. Loved their geometry! Loved the Zs, but I wasn't ready to pay more than $900.00 for my first bike. So I was leaning towards the F95, but I didn't care for the Tiagra/Sora drive train, or the 9 speed cassette. So I asked them what they could do to upgrade it to a 105 drivetrain and a 10 speed cassette, and they told me they'd sell me a Felt F85 for $875.00, plus pedals and tax. Went home to order the SS, only to find out BD was sold out of my size (52), despite that the website didn't even alert of low stock. I almost ordered the Falkirk, but then I pulled out my calculator and figured out that the savings would have only been about $120.00, and I still would have had to pay for an LBS to set it up, for the fitting, and for tune ups. My LBS is giving me three free tune ups in the first year, and of course, free set up and fitting, so I opted for the F85. They had to special order it and it should be here on Thursday. Hopefully Hurricane Irene will stay well off-shore and I'll have a chance to ride it over the weekend.
> 
> Thanks for your comment!!


It sounds like you got a great deal - congrats! I realized I responded to your first post before reading the one immediately following. I'll have to check out a few LBS too... I have no reservations about purchasing a BD bike, but if I could get something comparable to what you did, I'd lean that way as well...


----------



## RickJP

amadeus303 said:


> It sounds like you got a great deal - congrats! I realized I responded to your first post before reading the one immediately following. I'll have to check out a few LBS too... I have no reservations about purchasing a BD bike, but if I could get something comparable to what you did, I'd lean that way as well...


Thanks!!

Truth be told, I think it's probably a tad more advantageous to buy your first bike from an LBS, especially if you can get a deal. I figure that a year from now I'll probably start seriously looking to upgrade and if BD still has the MB Le Champion CF for about the same price as they have it now, with the Sram Rival components, I'll snatch one quick.


----------



## treedroppings

*My First Post!*

I just ordered a Motobecane Super Strada from BD. 
If all goes right I should have a great bike in about a week! and I never had an orange bike!:wink: 

I was looking at the Windsor Knight w/ Ultegra 30 speed as well. 
Although it doesn't have the full set of Ultegra components.

Any comparisons between the Windsor's TruVativ Elita GXP GigaXpipe 30/39/52T front sprocket and the SRAM Apex? the Tektro vs the Apex brakes?


----------



## Guest

swidd said:


> Well if you twist the numbers that way =)
> 
> My car gets 42MPG, is paid off and costs $30/month to insure. No tolls, no parking fees. 25 mile commute makes the daily expense $2.20.


The case where commuting by bike is a clear winner are special cases like college campuses, or downtown workplaces where parking a vehicle is crazy expensive, and dominates other marginal costs like fuel. 

I started riding a bike several years ago back in college where the cheapest annual parking permits were $750 and even then if you could find a spot, got you as much a mile walking-distance from your destination... in order to encourage more regular cycle commuting, the campus transportation department gave 10 free daily parking permits to use in case of bad weather to people who registred their bikes with them. 



> Buying a Motobecane Immortal Fire for $1,895, as I'm hoping to do, will take 2.42 years to break even, not counting maintenance, tire replacement and extra food costs.
> 
> With my current Trek hybrid that I paid $650 for, I haven't even started "paying for the bicycle", as every week I end up spending money on something: fixing derailleur cables, new tires, fixing flats, clicking sounds, helmet, flashing rear light as it is getting dark outside, fenders, new pedals for clip less, bike shoes, bike shorts with padding, butt cream, laundry three times as often, air pump, tool to cut the cable wires, special wrench to tighten the bottom bracket, chain cleaner, new chain, oil and lubricants, brake caliper adjustment, replacing broken spoke and whatnot.
> 
> I'm not *****ing, just saying, it is not necessarily cheaper to bicycle.


I don't think it's necessarily fair to include the price of things like tools, lights, etc. in your comparison of the marginal costs of driving vs cycling. I'd consider that part of the fixed/sunk cost of ownership. If you're going to own a bike no matter what, the tools will be a good thing to have, and are usually something you'll only need to buy once. 

Things like tire wear and tear, broken spokes, eating more food etc. are fair to include in the comparison though as those things are directly related to how many miles you ride. 

Conversely, if you need to have a car no matter what, it isn't fair to include things like registration/insurance expenses either -- as those will be close to the same regardless of whether you bike commute or not. True marginal costs for driving will be fuel, oil changes, marginal wear and tear, and parking fees. If there's no parking fees, there likely little or negative savings by cycling, although even that will depend a LOT on what kind of bike you have -- running a single speed bike cheap but robust tires will cost a lot less in maintenance per mile compared to a high end road bike with ultegra components and racing tires when you consider the higher replacement costs for cassettes, chains, tires, etc


----------

