You may want to consider technical skills more then the frame while descending. A good frame may make this much difference I------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I, but a good skill set makes more difference than anyone could fit on this post.
I’ve ridden many a better rider off my wheel with my superior cornering/descending/handling skills.
For sure you should be able to find a R5 for that price.
We ride around table rock/Caesars head every spring and it’s the ideal frame.
Thanks for all the great info gentlemen. I currently ride a Treck Pilot (and a P2) and just feel like I am losing out due to having a frame that is not really made for the riding here - although based on some of the posts, maybe I should just continue riding it and getting a treadmill instead ;-).
I wasn’t sure if I wanted to go with a used frame, just didn’t want to risk paying a bunch of money only to find a crack, etc in the carbon. I wouldn’t worry as much if I bought it off an ST’r. Also wasn’t sure if warranties would transfer.
Thanks again for your help.
CJ
Hey Martin, thanks for the local knowledge. I’ve ridden Caesar’s Head and that area (Assault on the Carolina’s, Hilly Hellacious, Burnsvile, etc), that’s exactly the riding I’m talking about.
CJ
Look for a bike that won’t require loads of spacers.
Agreed, but why is it I see so many road and tri bikes all stacked up with spacers at the front?
.
Great thread. We are now in the market for a road bike for my son, a freshman at IU, who just started training with a Little 5 team. We will look very hard at the Cannondales. David K
I’ve been looking at the Cervelo R3 b/c from what I’ve researched it is a great climbing, and possibly an even better descending, bike.
With apologies for the shameless plug, you are on the right track with the Cervelo R3. I ride one, and it goes up and down very well. Agree with others, that fit and positioning on the bike is key. It’s all about being properly balanced - particularly for the descents.
Frame-set price is right in your ball park.
What about a Madone?
And how about the wheel set you are going to use.The wheels are the first connection to the road then the frame then you.
Thanks Fleck.
And I agree with the ‘no spacer’ suggestions - I have no spacers on my Trek.
Agree with wheel selection being critical, but I’m trying to focus on the frame for now.
And I agree with the ‘no spacer’ suggestions - I have no spacers on my Trek.
Cervelo, seems to be one of the few bikes companies making high performance road bike frames that get’s this - they have made the head-tubes on all of their road bikes taller. You might have the reverse challenge, if properly fit on your Trek with no spacers, in that you’ll need to get creative with the stem( using a level or negative rise as many of the Pro riders so with their Cevelos), or drop down a size and ride with a slighly longer stem with a Cervelo.
The Trek I ride has a longer head tube, it’s a more upright geometry (so I took out the spacers and flipped the stem) so it may actually be similar to the Cervelos, at least with regard to what you say here. The/my Trek is just not a high performance bike.
in that you’ll need to get creative with the stem( using a level or negative rise as many of the Pro riders
Thats 2 of the problems in one sentence. People want to emulate Pro riders, (and shouldn’t because they can ride those low positions due to to in ordinate amount of riding they do), and it easier to fit a bike by adding spacers than it is by “getting creative”.
The other big issue is riding on the drops has all but disappeared. Bikes are set up with low bars and the hands on the hoods with the arms on the top of the bar is the lowest most people use. No one rides on the drops because its just too low. Set up higher and properly you have more positions to choose from.
Your observation about riding the drops needs its own thread…it might just be me but I have a very hard time getting my brake levers set up so that I can easily use them while in the drops…David K
in that you’ll need to get creative with the stem( using a level or negative rise as many of the Pro riders
Thats 2 of the problems in one sentence. People want to emulate Pro riders, (and shouldn’t because they can ride those low positions due to to in ordinate amount of riding they do), and it easier to fit a bike by adding spacers than it is by “getting creative”.
The other big issue is riding on the drops has all but disappeared. Bikes are set up with low bars and the hands on the hoods with the arms on the top of the bar is the lowest most people use. No one rides on the drops because its just too low. Set up higher and properly you have more positions to choose from.
Really, you couldn’t go wrong with the R3 frame but here is my opinion on the matter.
Probably not an opinion you will care for but I love my CAAD9 frame. Nowhere near the price you are willing to pay but bang for your buck, this frame is legit.
Another I will throw out there is the Scott CR1 2010 or newer. I believe in 2010 they went with a more relaxed geometry but kept the stiffness and awesome ride quality. I bet you could source a frame for under $1200 and use the extra money to get a nice light wheelset which would really be beneficial for your intended application.
I’m going to be the heretic and say that spacers are a red herring. If two bikes have the exact same geometry and one has a taller head tube and requires no spacers, and the other has a shorter head tube and requires 35mm of spacers, they will handle nearly identically. There will me a very, very slight difference in steering stiffness due to the use of spacers versus having the stem slammed, but other than that the typical performance rider will not be able to tell any difference. It is an aesthetic thing.
The more important issue at hand is whether a bikes handling geometry works with the location of the rider’s center of mass. I would argue that a well designed bike should allow a rider to add the maximum amount of spacers allowed with the typical carbon fork and still handle great (that’s only about 30 or 35mm in most instances). The problem is that bikes are now designed by product managers who have little to no idea how handling geometry works on a bicycle, how changing a fork rake (because if you make all your forks a single rake or maybe 2 rakes you can save money in production) effects trail and how front center and rear center can be adjusted to balance a rider over the wheelbase properly so that the bike handles well. It’s part of the difference of old-school steel bikes and the way that fabrication was passed from one generation to the next through an apprenticeship process and how the globalized beast works these days…
Some bike companies still have people who know how to design great geometry - I’d put Pinarello and Parlee and a few others in this category. Unfortunately, this seems to be becoming the exception rather than the rule and one company copies the geometry of another company that sells a lot of bikes and then tweaks it slightly to be different, semi-accurate axioms about long wheelbases and slack angles or shorter wheelbases and tighter angles become gospel and the knowledge base of the industry creeps ever downward in this area.
Sorry, just my inner curmudgeon coming out…
Caad10-1, 2012, 2013 model. Either one doesn’t matter. 1150 grams means it’ll climb well but still invoke courage and comfort on steep switchbacks.
+1 caad. Also, allez.
I’m in the market as well looking for something much better on descents then my current tri bike. (I know, I know, completely different but I want to be sure the road bike I buy is good for the mountains)
Head tube design has been breached quite a few times. The last person I talked to was telling me that bigger is better for descending and keeping the bike stable. If so, what is the opinion of a Titanium frame - they normally have standard head tubes.
No one has mentioned Colnago either but these are true tested bikes that are known for their ability to handle descents. Even the older aluminum models dont seem to even twitch.
When talking about Cannondale- can someone elaborate why they like them so much?
Head tube design has been breached quite a few times. The last person I talked to was telling me that bigger is better for descending and keeping the bike stable.
Couldn’t agree with this more. I have a Cervelo R5 and an S5 and the R5 descends a lot better than the S5. I have read reviews saying that the S5 descends great, but I have to wonder if this is in small sizes. I ride a 58cm frame and at that size, there is a lot of skinny (but very aero!) head tube as compared to the massive R5 head tube. It make a difference. With that said, in any other situation other than aggressive descending, the S5 is the faster bike.
If so, what is the opinion of a Titanium frame - they normally have standard head tubes.
I’m not sure anyone has ever pointed to a ti frame (at least recently) when coming up with a list of best-descending bikes. At this point, ti is really for roleurs and those that value comfort (and the ti “feel”) over right-at-the limit performance (and there is nothing wrong with that).
No one has mentioned Colnago either but these are true tested bikes that are known for their ability to handle descents.
Colnagos and others often descend well because they are fairly beefy, and have somewhat relaxed angles that lend themselves to high-speed stability. What makes the R5 so impressive to me is that it is crazy light but also crazy stiff in the front end, for outstanding behavior during demanding descents. Serottas were always known as great descending bikes, not so much because of their advanced frame material or construction, but because they had fairly relaxed angles combined with a relatively low BB height. So while great for long rides or road races, they might not be the best choice for a crit.
WOW!! Thanks!!!
Bigger head tube it is! Like you, I am a bit bigger but love to climb and descend. Weighing at 190 and being 6’1" I need stiff and sturdy.