Login required to started new threads
Login required to post replies
I swore I'd never post an XX bike v. YY bike post, but here one goes. I currently ride a fairly stiff Aluminum QR tri-bike. Never realized how much road chatter I feel until I started gearing up for IMF and logging long miles. I've been in the market for a road bike for several months now. Have narrowed my selection down to: Colnago Ovalmaster (Ti), LOOK 386 (carbon) and Kestrel Talon SL (carbon). I must say I am most thrilled with the ovalmaster, which is touted to be built/designed for bigger riders like me (I'm 6'-1" @ 195). Most of my friends ride carbon, and highly recommend the carbon as it is great for dampening road chatter, which could be good for someone with lower back issues like me. My father, however, an aerospace stress analysis engineer, along with his colleagues (yes, I posed this question to them too), highly recommend the Ti over carbon any day of the week (i.e., stronger, less apt to failure).
Could someone please give me some comparative insight on these materials, taking into consideration my larger size and lower back issues? My weekend rides are plus-75, so comfort is important. The Colnago and Look fit me well; don't know about the Talon yet.
Thank you very much.
Robert
Generalizations about frame materials are a lot like generalizations about people IMHO, they are generally not accurate. People love the convenient answer that "Steel rides like this, aluminum always feels like this and titanium will ride like this and carbon fiber feels like that..." Perhaps a more accurate characterization is that, with new tubing and material technologies such as cold-working, multi-shaping, exotic alloys, combinations of different materials (alluminum and carbon, cro-moly and carbon, etc.) any material can ride like anything. The most comfortable bike I ever rode was a Vitus (&( Duralinox- an aluminum bike. The worst riding bike was also an aluminum frame bike from a different manufacturer. Both aluminum, but with very different ride characteristics. The is just one example of why generalizations aren't generally accurate. Also, the things that influence the ride quality the most tend to be a conspiracy of tires, tire pressure, wheels, fork, geometry, fit, seatpost and saddle. By manipulating these variables you can acheive a lot of different results. I will default to the bikesport party line and say, stop comparing bikes and start comparing fit.
Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com
I agree with what Mr Demerly said and want to make sure you are aware of the warranty issue regarding Colnago. The last time I checked they were only offering a one year warranty of their frames, and even warranty claims in the first year were difficult to have honored. If you buy the Colnago, assume that you are getting no warranty at all with the frame.
Looks are supposed to be great bikes, but again they have a relatively short warranty period and the parent company is, again, overseas.
Assuming it fits you, I would recommend getting a Talon. Great frame, great company standing behind it.
Thanks Tom. I do realize my question, like most of these bike questions, bring out generalizations. I realize, too, that one must compare fit. I did mention two of the three bikes fit me well. Here is the problem: How do I "really" compare fit over a simple demo ride? Maybe I'm obtuse, but I think I need a couple of longish rides before I can figure out fit and ride issues, testing hills, rough roads, etc. Are there bike shops that will let you have long demo rides on their pristine, new 4-5K bikes? Thanks.
Last edited by:
RA: Sep 16, 03 4:05