Road Bike, Cycling Forums banner
1 - 20 of 24 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
650 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I've been looking at a new bike for a while now. I like the idea of a metal bike while racing and I have never minded the rough ride. I've been looking at the Cannondale CAAD5 and the Cervelo Soloist Team. Both frames are well made (as far as I can tell) and pro-quality (at some point). The Cannondale is lighter but the Cervelo is more aero. And while the Cervelo is a bit more expensive, it comes with Ultegra components. My big problem with the Cervelo is that you don't really get full Ultegra. By essentially paying about $600-700 more for the Cervelo I get Ultegra derailleurs and Shifters but an FSA crank and Cervelo Brakes. The Cannondale is obviously equipped with full 105 which means there are going to be a lot of things I will want to replace, starting with the wheels. Is it really worth it to pay the extra money for that Cervelo "aero advantage" only to end up with a bike with some better components but still not ideal ones? Your thoughts would be much appreciated.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
8,252 Posts
PigmyRacer said:
I've been looking at a new bike for a while now. I like the idea of a metal bike while racing and I have never minded the rough ride. I've been looking at the Cannondale CAAD5 and the Cervelo Soloist Team. Both frames are well made (as far as I can tell) and pro-quality (at some point). The Cannondale is lighter but the Cervelo is more aero. And while the Cervelo is a bit more expensive, it comes with Ultegra components. My big problem with the Cervelo is that you don't really get full Ultegra. By essentially paying about $600-700 more for the Cervelo I get Ultegra derailleurs and Shifters but an FSA crank and Cervelo Brakes. The Cannondale is obviously equipped with full 105 which means there are going to be a lot of things I will want to replace, starting with the wheels. Is it really worth it to pay the extra money for that Cervelo "aero advantage" only to end up with a bike with some better components but still not ideal ones? Your thoughts would be much appreciated.
For racing....I suggest staying with the cheaper bike....if you crash you will be very happy with that decision and the extra few ounces of weight won't make any difference in the end.

As for the "Aero Advantage" on a road bike in a peloton there is no aero advantage unless you are on a solo breakaway and even then it's very, very slight (10-15 seconds over 40K).

If the Cannondale is a good fit, go with it. There is absolutely nothing wrong with 105 components for racing. I find little to no difference between my 105 10 speed and my Ultegra 10 speed. The only real difference is a few grams less weight...that's all.

Save the extra money and purchase a lighter wheel set.
 

· Carbon Fiber = Explode!
Joined
·
3,955 Posts
Dude, aluminum is fast. Sure, many people will say it's not much faster than CF but at least when it fatigues it'll explode like CF.

Wait, that's didn't make any sense right?

Buy either one. They're great frames. Aero would be nice for TT's in the future if you plan on tri-ng it.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
220 Posts
Which one fits best?

I would go with the Cannondale with 105 everyday and twice on Sunday. Then you can pick up a nicer wheelset, and use the originals as spares. You'll never notice any meaningful difference between 105 and Ultegra.

As far as aero frames go I just don't get this... You're going to attach water bottles to those "aero profile" seat and down tubes right??? Then how aero will they be?

YMMV, IMHO, etc.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
650 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
KeithNYC said:
Which one fits best?

I would go with the Cannondale with 105 everyday and twice on Sunday. Then you can pick up a nicer wheelset, and use the originals as spares. You'll never notice any meaningful difference between 105 and Ultegra.

As far as aero frames go I just don't get this... You're going to attach water bottles to those "aero profile" seat and down tubes right??? Then how aero will they be?

YMMV, IMHO, etc.
They both fit pretty well with a little haggling over stem length and bar reach.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
3,096 Posts
At the "Eldorado Park" criterium series up in Long Beach (basically a "citizen race"), you'd be dumbfounded at the number of Cannondales, old and less old.

These are mostly unsponsored folks and a "Cannonwhale" makes a great, stiff, light, quick-handling, cheap (used), and therefore somewhat expendable criterium machine.

But many of them would tell you it would not be their first choice for a century or a long club ride.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
381 Posts
I know they seem to be going of out of favor right now, but a bike that combines a mostly aluminum frame with CF in strategic places (fork, seat stays) is the best value IMHO. The aluminum gets you a stiff and light frame for good transfer of power while the CF tames some of the ride harshness of a full aluminum bike. And all this for usually what is just a slight price increase over a full aluminum frame. Good bang for the buck IMO.

And yes, I own just such a bike, so I am biased. For those that are interested, it is an '96 Trek 2100.

Later,

Treker
 

· Registered
Joined
·
863 Posts
Treker said:
I know they seem to be going of out of favor right now, but a bike that combines a mostly aluminum frame with CF in strategic places (fork, seat stays) is the best value IMHO. The aluminum gets you a stiff and light frame for good transfer of power while the CF tames some of the ride harshness of a full aluminum bike. And all this for usually what is just a slight price increase over a full aluminum frame. Good bang for the buck IMO.

And yes, I own just such a bike, so I am biased. For those that are interested, it is an '96 Trek 2100.

Later,

Treker
I'd be interested in an experiment. Take two bikes, one all Al. and the other the same frame with CF seatstays. Then obscure the seatstays on both from view (with duct tape or the like). Do you think you could tell the difference?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
381 Posts
SleeveleSS said:
I'd be interested in an experiment. Take two bikes, one all Al. and the other the same frame with CF seatstays. Then obscure the seatstays on both from view (with duct tape or the like). Do you think you could tell the difference?
That would be a great experiment. I didn't do quite a direct head to head like that, but my final two choices when I picked the Trek 2100 were the 2100 and a Cannondale Synapse Alloy. They were very close overall, but the ride of the 2100 just seemed smoother and less harsh IMO. I felt like I could ride it all day. Was this difference real or was it just what I expected? I don't know, but an experiment like you propose would help decide that.

Later,

Jay B.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,326 Posts
I finished a B+ group ride on my 24 pound 1987 Specialized Sirrus last year.
Not a lot of fun. I would think that as to the seatstay question, all other things being
equal, my CF seatstay aluminum bike was much less harsh, however the newer
Canondales, etal are using curved and articulated tubing in the seatstays to produce
the same effect with a ligher structure since their is no CF\Aluminum interface overlap.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
655 Posts
Just get the bike that fits best. It matters not one bit what its made from. Great bikes are made in carbon, aluminium, ti, steel. Crappy bike are also made in all the above. Material does not make a faster bike. Fit is #1. Areodynamics of the frame are a far second to position. I pass timetrial bikes all the time on my steel roadbike. My advise would be buy a cheap bike that fits and spend some money on some tires (riding alot wears out tires don't ya know)
 

· Registered
Joined
·
370 Posts
I've got a CAAD9 and I absolutely love the bike. I dont understand this "aluminium is harsh" thing at all. I've done centuries with no problem absolutely.

I'll bet that 5psi less on your tires will have a much more dramatic effect than CF chainstays ...
 

· Registered
Joined
·
650 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
Ok. Just to get something out of the way. I have no intention of buying a carbon bike and I am fairly certain that I have not hinted that I intend to change my mind. Every bike I've ever owned has been either aluminum or steel and I have no intention of changing that.

My question is fairly simple. At the end of the day, I'm going to feel like a shmuck for having gone with the more expensive frame and kit as opposed to the less expensive frame and kit.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,124 Posts
PigmyRacer said:
Ok. Just to get something out of the way. I have no intention of buying a carbon bike and I am fairly certain that I have not hinted that I intend to change my mind. Every bike I've ever owned has been either aluminum or steel and I have no intention of changing that.

My question is fairly simple. At the end of the day, I'm going to feel like a shmuck for having gone with the more expensive frame and kit as opposed to the less expensive frame and kit.
I'm a recent convert to carbon, I still ride my Ti and Steel bikes but the carbon ride is sexy, fun and replaceable (depending on my financial situation). But I'm not trying to convince you of anything here.

To answer your question, no. You will ride whichever bike you buy, you will enjoy riding it because you enjoy riding. This enjoyment will be amplified by the fact than you are riding something that is new that you acquired by working to earn money.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
92 Posts
+1 on the 105 Issue

Shimano 105 is great for a bike.

There are a number of posts that validate the fact that 105 components are every bit as good as Ultegra or Durace.

I've had Durace, Chorus, and 105s. The 105s on my 20 year old shift at least as well as my 2003 Chorus.

Absolutely, don't make a decision based upon that. That said, Cervelo brakes work just fine as well.

Best of luck.
 
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top