Quintana Roo prsix2 vs speedmax cf slx

Feb 17, 24 8:01

Post #1 of 15 (1634 views)

I am in the market for a new triathlon bike. Seems like the best deals I found were on the Quanta Roo prsix2 and the Canyon speedmax cf slx, but I am not sold on these. It is so hard to make a decision without the ability to see the bikes in person. I am looking for electronic shifting and easy to use hydration system. I recently went to a fitter, and he gave me the attached numbers. He pushed hard to hard to sell me on a Argon 18 e-117 and called all other bikes garbage. This is understandable seeing that he wants me to buy the bike he sells and isn't interested in fitting/working on bikes he isn't familiar with. This really doesn't help me much. Nothing wrong with that bike, but I don't think it's the one I want.

The bike that grabs my attention the most in the Canyon speedmax SLX, but I am concerned with the hydration system. It looks completely amazing, but I would likely be in a small bike and the bladder only would hold 500ml which doesn't even hold a full bottle. I am a camel and I'd be filling it up at least twice an hour, and that sounds like too much to deal with. I just don't think I would be happy with the small hydration. The in-frame storage looks pretty awesome too, and the bike comes with a much better wheel. It also looks hard to order in the USA.

The Quintana Roo, seems to have everything I need and is 2k cheaper, through price isn't the biggest concern to me.

The big problem I see with these two brands is they seem to by direct to consumers. It might be tough to find a shop who would want to work/fit these, although I could probably handle most things myself. I am finding the fitter I went to wasn't excited about them at all.

I am also up for purchasing used, but I am not finding enough of a discount on those.

Last edited by: bluedinosaur: Feb 18, 24 3:35

Re: Quintana Roo prsix2 vs speedmax cf slx [bluedinosaur] [ In reply to ]

Feb 17, 24 8:16

Post #2 of 15 (1621 views)

the days of shops refusing to work on consumer direct bikes is long gone. there are just too many of these now, and too many shops or mobile mechanics have embraced working on these.

as to hydration, one thing about QR - you might like this and you might not, depending on who you are and what's important to you - is they don't generally make their own sub assemblies. they leave handlebars, hydration and so on to their vendors and they concentrate on what they know how to do best. this means they're beholden to their vendors for (say) an aerobar style, and if their vendors don't make that style it can be frustrating. for this reason, other brands make their own.

the flip side is, the vendor only has to concentrate on the hydration system. in QR's case that's profile design, and that front hydration is removable, and is not exactly the stock hydration that profile makes. profile has a slightly differentiated version that exactly works on the QR bike.

you will want to upgrade to profile design's 43asc extensions. ask QR how much just to sub those in at purchase.

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Re: Quintana Roo prsix2 vs speedmax cf slx [bluedinosaur] [ In reply to ]

Feb 17, 24 14:10

Post #3 of 15 (1524 views)

I have a prsix2. It's a good bike. I'm not going to sell it to buy the Canyon, but if I was buying a new bike, I'd get the Canyon.

Not sure if you'd find a Canyon person that would rather have a QR in the same situation.

Re: Quintana Roo prsix2 vs speedmax cf slx [bluedinosaur] [ In reply to ]

Feb 17, 24 17:56

Post #4 of 15 (1490 views)

Mmmmm this post really speaks to me. Here are my responses in no paticular order...

Dan Empfield (Slowman) is briliant. He, as alwasy, makes great points.
For a fitter to even suggest that all other bikes are garbage is really unprofessional. I teach bike fit school and this will remind me to fatten the professionalism portion in my next course
The Argon 18 is a great. The QR PRsix is a great. The Canyon Speedmax is a great - so many people make great bikes now-a-days
I'm respect that you're looking at your priorities; the on-board hydration for example. Remember there are alwasy ways to customize and improve what the stock bike can do.
I like that you're coming from a fit-first perspective. You'll do well because of i

Get me the fit numbers on the Canyon thread and we'll start there.

Ian

Ian Murray
http://www.TriathlonTrainingSeries.com
I like the pursuit of mastery
Twitter - @TriCoachIan

Re: Quintana Roo prsix2 vs speedmax cf slx [bluedinosaur] [ In reply to ]

Feb 18, 24 0:30

Post #5 of 15 (1441 views)

Your position roughly converts to pad XY (rear) 495,675 as far as I can tell from those numbers
Did the fitter provide a pic, because the position is very stretched relative to your saddle height (that could be your body proportions)?

In any case, Argon E-117 would not be a great choice, nor would Canyon, they are both tall frames

I haven't shown the Canyon, but it would take quite of lot of changes to the bars to get your position
The Argon would require a very long stem

To hit the position you need a frame that is lower/longer so Cervelo & QR are better choices
I've shown the Cervelo with basic bars (because that's what it comes with), QR is easier to get supplied with higher level kit.
But the risk is that going to one of the large size frames to hit your bar position isn't going to leave much seatpost so you may have a standover issue.

So I think your first issue is to verify your fit with Ian on the other thread, because some elements seem a bit off.
Second issue is that I disagree with Ian - there are no great Tri bikes, just plenty of competent ones. It looks like you may need to put in a bit of effort to make something work well if these fit numbers are a guide to a realistic position for you.

Re: Quintana Roo prsix2 vs speedmax cf slx [cyclenutnz] [ In reply to ]

Feb 18, 24 4:13

Post #6 of 15 (1402 views)

Cylcenutnz,

Thanks a lot for all the effort in helping me out. Shoot I should have asked for a picture. I didn't know what I was looking for during the fitting. I think the issue may just be my proportions. I have short legs/limbs compared to my long torso. I also have broad shoulders.

Would you be willing to share a higher resolution version of the graph you created? I can't really read it at that resolution.

This is good information, and I guess my fitter just wanted to sell me the Argon 18 and wasn't trying to push me toward the best bike for my dimensions. He did talk about how I was going to need a smaller frame for stand over and a long stem, but wasn't very helpful on making a recommendation for a good bike to buy.

I will see what Ian says in the other thread. Interesting perspectives you guys have. Seems like the top brands are all very similar quality. I love my felt I have now, but it's got road bike handlebars, and I have no idea if it was fit correctly for my body as I bought it used. I am glad I posted on this thread before just buying something.

Re: Quintana Roo prsix2 vs speedmax cf slx [cyclenutnz] [ In reply to ]

Feb 18, 24 6:56

Post #7 of 15 (1372 views)

David,

Can you walk me through how you derived 495, 675 from that sheet. I got close to your numbers, but thought it was 487, 680.

Here's who I got there...in a bit I wrote to the OP in the Canyon Speedmax Fit Thread.
we have the set back of 78mm and we have this "Pad ctr/tip of saddle 61.5" - If this means the distance from the tip of the saddle to the center?? of pad is 615mm we could subtract the setback of 78 we'd get 537. And then if I assume that the pad is 100mm long (most are) we subtrack 50 and get a Pad X of 487. Oh boy, there's potential for a lot of noise in all these guesses. The Pad Y isn't much better... sure Seat Height is 700 and Drop (or Pad Height) is 20mm... so we're guessing your Pad Y is 680. If I were to try and prescribe off those nubmers (Pad Y of 680 and Pad X of 487) you'd be a size Large in the SLX and the seat height of 700 wouldn't be possible. So... we get into trouble with all these assumptions.

Eager to keep learning.

Ian

Ian Murray
http://www.TriathlonTrainingSeries.com
I like the pursuit of mastery
Twitter - @TriCoachIan

Re: Quintana Roo prsix2 vs speedmax cf slx [bluedinosaur] [ In reply to ]

Feb 19, 24 19:27

Post #8 of 15 (1193 views)

Based on your proportions the fit measurements make more sense
Ideally you need a bike from 15 years ago when they were lower and longer
But that isn't much help
So with what is available these days I'd be considering the Cervelo P-Series as there is a little bit of drop along the top tube to give a better chance of standover clearance
You're probably not going to want to use a top tube box
Size 58, Profile Design Tri Stem 105mm, Wing20C+ bars in the low position with 20mm of pad risers
I'd also suggest that you look at a 150 or 155mm crank for your leg length

Re: Quintana Roo prsix2 vs speedmax cf slx [ianpeace] [ In reply to ]

Feb 19, 24 19:31

Post #9 of 15 (1191 views)

Hi Ian

I think the difference is mostly in the assumptions
Pad length 80mm so 40mm to centre
And did the saddle height point from 130mm back on the saddle to get saddle top Y

As I mentioned above I'd be looking for a sloped top tube like P-series or BMC Speedmachine (which would require the low bar to get the reach, then 60mm of risers)

Re: Quintana Roo prsix2 vs speedmax cf slx [cyclenutnz] [ In reply to ]

Feb 20, 24 17:12

Post #10 of 15 (1023 views)

Thanks for the help Cyclenutnz,

I talked to my fitter, and he told me my numbers are:

Saddle height = 700 mm
Pad X = 488 mm
Pad Y = 642 mm

Re: Quintana Roo prsix2 vs speedmax cf slx [bluedinosaur] [ In reply to ]

Feb 22, 24 0:31

Post #11 of 15 (880 views)

Well both Ian and I were off on the Pad Y calculation

You need to hunt out an Aeria Ultimate stem to get the bars down low enough on a 58
Or a 56 would use the lighter Tri Stem
Stem choice equalises the fit of the frames from the Pad Y perspective, but the 58 does offer a reach advantage

Re: Quintana Roo prsix2 vs speedmax cf slx [cyclenutnz] [ In reply to ]

Feb 22, 24 10:46

Post #12 of 15 (819 views)

David,

Thanks for the help and the effort. I had a couple of questions.

1) Is your recommendation would be to use the WING 20C+ ERGO over the stock Zipp handlebars on the Cervelo P-series? Would this give me a better fit for my body? Seems like my best bet is to buy the 105 version and sell the components. That is a little bit better value than just buying the frameset. I am new to building a bike but as a Mech Eng I think I can figure it out.

2) You recommended I go for a lower 150 mm or 155 mm cranks. Would I want to increase/decrease the saddle height to compensate? It's a jump from my 170 crank, but probably a good one. These are kind of Niche to find right now, correct?

3) Is your preferred recommendation to go with the 58 because of the added reach I would get, but 56 is another suitable option? I'd have to adjust the stem with the different versions. That seems like a big jump from my current 54 felt, which is probably not sized right for me as I bought it used with road handlebars. I plan to head to my LBS which has a 58 p-series tonight to see if I prefer the 58 or 56.

Thanks for the help.

Re: Quintana Roo prsix2 vs speedmax cf slx [bluedinosaur] [ In reply to ]

Feb 22, 24 11:02

Post #13 of 15 (815 views)

bluedinosaur wrote:

1) Is your recommendation would be to use the WING 20C+ ERGO over the stock Zipp handlebars on the Cervelo P-series?

There is bias involved in the recommendation - I am responsible for the Wing20C+ (and other PD products). The stock Zipp bars have a wide fit range, but it's not very granular. I also find most people prefer to change out the extensions and armrests. A Wing20C+ with Tri stem also allows the cables to be nearly completely hidden on a Di2 P-series, which is quite nice. And the Tri stem allows the use of the HSF Aeria which is one of the best speed/$ add ons

bluedinosaur wrote:

Would this give me a better fit for my body? Seems like my best bet is to buy the 105 version and sell the components. That is a little bit better value than just buying the frameset. I am new to building a bike but as a Mech Eng I think I can figure it out.

Yes buying a complete is better value.

bluedinosaur wrote:

2) You recommended I go for a lower 150 mm or 155 mm cranks. Would I want to increase/decrease the saddle height to compensate? It's a jump from my 170 crank, but probably a good one. These are kind of Niche to find right now, correct?

saddle would go up by the amount of the length change. Not really niche - Rotor and Jcob both fairly easily available in the USA afaik

bluedinosaur wrote:

3) Is your preferred recommendation to go with the 58 because of the added reach I would get, but 56 is another suitable option? I'd have to adjust the stem with the different versions. That seems like a big jump from my current 54 felt, which is probably not sized right for me as I bought it used with road handlebars. I plan to head to my LBS which has a 58 p-series tonight to see if I prefer the 58 or 56.

More front centre means more stability in the aerobars - that's the main reason for the larger frame recommendation. Personally I found getting my 56 out close to 500mm pad x was getting to the edge of my stability tolerance (I have a similar torso length to you but I'm 6'4" so quite a lot more leg).

My suggestion would be to plan out how to get this bike right. Part of which is having easy adjustment available to tweak your position. Which is what I've designed the PD products for. Hiding cables and other measures to have an aesthetically pleasing bike is something I value too.

Re: Quintana Roo prsix2 vs speedmax cf slx [cyclenutnz] [ In reply to ]

Feb 27, 24 7:15

Post #14 of 15 (531 views)

Thanks for the help Cyclenutnz. I decided to follow through with your recommendation and order the p series 58 size, and going with the 155 pedals. Still nervous if the fit will be right but testing in the shop it seemed correct. Stand height sucked but that won't slow me down in a race. I hope I trust my bike fitter lol. It feels totally strange getting a bigger bike at 5 10 then a man 6 4, but I will see once I set it up.

Re: Quintana Roo prsix2 vs speedmax cf slx [bluedinosaur] [ In reply to ]

Feb 27, 24 10:32

Post #15 of 15 (506 views)

The 56 was from when I was squeezing into the old UCI TT rules and it wasn't possible to have a position that required a larger frame
I have a 61 now, because I've become too slow to worry about TT rules and I wanted to get my tri position right, with the most stable frame I could get.

Our Partners

transition-DOT-area-AT-slowtwitch-DOT-com

Advertise with us

©1999-2024 Slowtwitch, Inc., and Slowtwitch.com
Reproduction of material from any Slowtwitch.com page
without written permission is strictly prohibited.