Feeling a little bit behind the times, I decide to spring for a new bike. I've got a 10 year old Giant TCR (Shimano 105) and an even older all-Italian ride, Columbus SL (with the Cinelli "aerodynamic" BB) + Campy Veloce. I took the older one to the LBS. I consider myself fairly sensitive to my bike set up.
Keeping in mind that these are just short test-rides, not enough time to personalize the bike perfectly. I managed to snag 3 rides and a did a bunch of laps around the area, storming up the hills and sprinting on the flats (bonus, I hit SRAM, Shimano & Campy too):
1) Cervelo RS: Supposedly race pedigree, Paris-Roubaix winning bike, right?. Well, I found the default setup is veeery relaxed. Not even my MTB handlebars are so high up. That may have contributed to the fact that every time I sprint, I have to be careful not to raise the front wheel. The bars are also very narrow for my liking and cockpit way too short (maybe I'm meant to ride upright?). SRAM is easy to figure out, I don't think I ever missed a shift, but I don't like it. Shifting to bigger cogs is a pain compared to Shimano or Campy. Having to fling it extra far feels like an unnecessary effort & delay. If it was reeeally cheap, sure I'd put up with it, but for the same price, naw, I'll pass. The bike was very stable "hands off", but need to pay attention during the sprints.
2) Pinarello FP2 Carbon: Having said the RS seemed maybe too relaxed for
me, I bypassed a Look carbon which they said would be similar. I felt the Pinarello was a bit more "aggressive" as they said, but still not what I'm used to riding! At least there was a bit more cockpit space. I did like the default setup a bit better than the Cervelo. Funny thing, when sprinting, the FP2 felt more stable than the RS, but "hands off", it was a bit squirelly vs. the RS. Shimano's latest Ultegra felt just the same as my old 105 pretty much. A "nice to have", but nothing that'll make me a superstar
3) Marinoni Piuma (steel!): Well, 2 guys there said it was worth a try. First thing I noted, the sharp pinging noises as sand hit the tubes. The default setup was much more to my liking, bar width, seat/handlebar difference was sort of like my Giant. The ride was nice and familiar. The Campy Athena? Ultra sensitive shifting compared to my old one, I kept going up too many cogs at first, but I got used to it. One thing I really miss is the ability to slam down multiple gears at once. You don't know you need it until you don't have it. The hoods are way more comfortable and shifting is lighter now. The brakes seemed the best of the bunch. Good ride, yes. But I have to admit, when sprinting or accelerating up the hills, there is just this slight "pause", not as "snappy" as the 2 carbons. It's small, if I hadn't ridden it immediately back-to-back, I may not notice, but clearly it was there. I could imagine doing this repeatedly over 6 hours, it would be tiring. On the other hand, the difference may be the wheels/tires, not the frame... Except for that one little thing, I would rate this bike the best handling and feel "out of the box".
Oh wait! Did I say that? No, there's one more bike, the old Italian steed that I took to the LBS. Maybe it's the tires (Vredestein), but it was smoother riding than the rest. It was pretty responsive in the sprints, maybe at least as good as the Marinoni? It was stable, comfortable... the big difference was it didn't absorb the big bumps as well. Also, I should note the whole drivetrain is well past due for an update, over 20,000km and the front wheel is still the original.
The bottom line is the 2 carbon frames did not blow me away vs. the new steel or my old steel or the aluminum as I was expecting. Better? Probably yes. $2k-3k better? Probably not.
Yes, just my opinion only, but I think people should really start ignoring the frame material, ignore the weight and just go for a test ride and let that be the deciding factor. (Unless you're a pro). In fact, both my old rides benchmark pretty similar times during my commutes despite a significant amount of hills and nearly 2kg weight difference between the bikes.
Keeping in mind that these are just short test-rides, not enough time to personalize the bike perfectly. I managed to snag 3 rides and a did a bunch of laps around the area, storming up the hills and sprinting on the flats (bonus, I hit SRAM, Shimano & Campy too):
1) Cervelo RS: Supposedly race pedigree, Paris-Roubaix winning bike, right?. Well, I found the default setup is veeery relaxed. Not even my MTB handlebars are so high up. That may have contributed to the fact that every time I sprint, I have to be careful not to raise the front wheel. The bars are also very narrow for my liking and cockpit way too short (maybe I'm meant to ride upright?). SRAM is easy to figure out, I don't think I ever missed a shift, but I don't like it. Shifting to bigger cogs is a pain compared to Shimano or Campy. Having to fling it extra far feels like an unnecessary effort & delay. If it was reeeally cheap, sure I'd put up with it, but for the same price, naw, I'll pass. The bike was very stable "hands off", but need to pay attention during the sprints.
2) Pinarello FP2 Carbon: Having said the RS seemed maybe too relaxed for
me, I bypassed a Look carbon which they said would be similar. I felt the Pinarello was a bit more "aggressive" as they said, but still not what I'm used to riding! At least there was a bit more cockpit space. I did like the default setup a bit better than the Cervelo. Funny thing, when sprinting, the FP2 felt more stable than the RS, but "hands off", it was a bit squirelly vs. the RS. Shimano's latest Ultegra felt just the same as my old 105 pretty much. A "nice to have", but nothing that'll make me a superstar
3) Marinoni Piuma (steel!): Well, 2 guys there said it was worth a try. First thing I noted, the sharp pinging noises as sand hit the tubes. The default setup was much more to my liking, bar width, seat/handlebar difference was sort of like my Giant. The ride was nice and familiar. The Campy Athena? Ultra sensitive shifting compared to my old one, I kept going up too many cogs at first, but I got used to it. One thing I really miss is the ability to slam down multiple gears at once. You don't know you need it until you don't have it. The hoods are way more comfortable and shifting is lighter now. The brakes seemed the best of the bunch. Good ride, yes. But I have to admit, when sprinting or accelerating up the hills, there is just this slight "pause", not as "snappy" as the 2 carbons. It's small, if I hadn't ridden it immediately back-to-back, I may not notice, but clearly it was there. I could imagine doing this repeatedly over 6 hours, it would be tiring. On the other hand, the difference may be the wheels/tires, not the frame... Except for that one little thing, I would rate this bike the best handling and feel "out of the box".
Oh wait! Did I say that? No, there's one more bike, the old Italian steed that I took to the LBS. Maybe it's the tires (Vredestein), but it was smoother riding than the rest. It was pretty responsive in the sprints, maybe at least as good as the Marinoni? It was stable, comfortable... the big difference was it didn't absorb the big bumps as well. Also, I should note the whole drivetrain is well past due for an update, over 20,000km and the front wheel is still the original.
The bottom line is the 2 carbon frames did not blow me away vs. the new steel or my old steel or the aluminum as I was expecting. Better? Probably yes. $2k-3k better? Probably not.
Yes, just my opinion only, but I think people should really start ignoring the frame material, ignore the weight and just go for a test ride and let that be the deciding factor. (Unless you're a pro). In fact, both my old rides benchmark pretty similar times during my commutes despite a significant amount of hills and nearly 2kg weight difference between the bikes.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram