Apologies on the mistake on the Cervelo RCA. I had it backwards, clearly. But they do make a big deal about the fork.
I can't believe anyone who thinks 150 grams doesn't matter would bother reading this forum. Of course other things matter, and of course some of these matter more (fit, for example), and this is why Tour uses a score where mass is just one part. But knowing nothing else, I'll go with the lighter bike.
Tour Magazine tests 2015.03
Moderator: robbosmans
Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓ Broad Selection ✓ Worldwide Delivery ✓
www.starbike.com
dj, I agree with you. This forum is weight weenies. I think we all know weight is just one aspect, but it is very important to me. Lightweight bikes, parts, etc. are the main reasons I read this forum. I am a weight weenie but I can also enjoy bikes that are not light.
kgt wrote:@ airwise
+100. I really cannot believe how some people can isolate a parameter of a bike in order to say "this is x grams lighter so it will make you y second faster". Sorry, that's not the way it works.
@BeeSeeBee
Ride quality is neither magic nor mysticism. IMHO many experienced riders can discern between a nice ride, a bad ride and an indifferent one. Le Cycle's magazine tests provide a good example of this.
yeah, Le Cycle is just about the only magazine that provides clues on how a bike rides and the sort of user it is best suited to
[quote="djconnel"
I can't believe anyone who thinks 150 grams doesn't matter would bother reading this forum. [/quote]
Well I'm here.
At the end of the day we are all fairly serious cyclists and there's a lot of knowledge here. If I can save weight without negatively effecting any important aspect of a bike's performance then I will - and I can find out how here.
I won't however build a bike simply to weigh 5.5kg - unless I want to show it off to others and play top trumps. The only circumstance where I might would be if I were a hillclimber here in the UK and simply raced uphills. Then I would have a bike specifically for it.
Where I ride however (the mountains of Europe and SE Asia), "what goes up must come down". I've seen far too many riders losing minutes on descents simply because the ride quality and stability of their weight saving project is borderline at best - meaning they have far less confidence. It's not much use saving half a watt on a climb if you start that climb five minutes behind me is it DJ?
I used to think like you. I guess we all did at some point. Over time I came to realise just what was important for riding in the mountains all day - and I can safely say that shaving 150g off the weight of the bike was far down that list of priorities.
So I will still visit WW because there's a fine bunch of cyclists here. I won't however be spending more money on titanium bolts, alloy nipples or carbon axles. IME it's easy these days to make a bike that weighs next to nothing. It's harder to manufacture a bike that rides superbly. And finally, it's still nigh on impossible to offer a product that combines both these qualities in equal measure. Something has to give IMHO and for me, I'd rather that was the weight of a Powerbar than the ride quality of my bike.
I can't believe anyone who thinks 150 grams doesn't matter would bother reading this forum. [/quote]
Well I'm here.
At the end of the day we are all fairly serious cyclists and there's a lot of knowledge here. If I can save weight without negatively effecting any important aspect of a bike's performance then I will - and I can find out how here.
I won't however build a bike simply to weigh 5.5kg - unless I want to show it off to others and play top trumps. The only circumstance where I might would be if I were a hillclimber here in the UK and simply raced uphills. Then I would have a bike specifically for it.
Where I ride however (the mountains of Europe and SE Asia), "what goes up must come down". I've seen far too many riders losing minutes on descents simply because the ride quality and stability of their weight saving project is borderline at best - meaning they have far less confidence. It's not much use saving half a watt on a climb if you start that climb five minutes behind me is it DJ?
I used to think like you. I guess we all did at some point. Over time I came to realise just what was important for riding in the mountains all day - and I can safely say that shaving 150g off the weight of the bike was far down that list of priorities.
So I will still visit WW because there's a fine bunch of cyclists here. I won't however be spending more money on titanium bolts, alloy nipples or carbon axles. IME it's easy these days to make a bike that weighs next to nothing. It's harder to manufacture a bike that rides superbly. And finally, it's still nigh on impossible to offer a product that combines both these qualities in equal measure. Something has to give IMHO and for me, I'd rather that was the weight of a Powerbar than the ride quality of my bike.
Our ww forum is all about great riding (and looking) bikes which are or gradually become as light as possible. It' not about superlight bikes that ride so and so. Lightweight wheels are maybe the holy grail of wweenism because they are top performing wheels which are also very light.
First, though not in direct response to the OP: There's a common thread in the reaction here to Tour tests.
I get Tour Magazin in German and I notice most posters who react here either don't, or don't read it thoroughly (though I think Simon does, yes?) The one thing that makes their tests good, is transparency. Their scoring method may well be flawed or biased, but with the whole test in hand, you can make up your own mind, and even your own score. For example: in the 02.2015 aero bike test; if the S5 was equipped with 404's, like the Aeroad, it would've won (weight advantage). Taking apart the method, you can easily see that the S5 is the (slightly) faster choice for flat to rolling terrain. At which point, you can argue the choice of 'testing' (modelling) aero bikes in mountainous courses. Again, the article is transparent. The question of aero vs weight is put to a test that one might think favors weight. And it's shown that even the 'slower' aero bikes are faster in this model than a 6.8kg top end 'standard' road bike. Another reason the Aeroad does so well is that they've managed to make the aero seatpost compliant enough to score well in Tour's comfort test.
Now I'm not saying we shouldn't be sceptical of anything we read, nor that economic pressure isn't a factor in publishing/editorial decisions. I am saying that it isn't that strange that a German, engineering driven bike manufacturer builds bikes that score well in Germany's leading bike mag. I'll add that it still took time, as the previous Aeroad models didn't score that well, especially in the aerodynamics department, but many people ignore or forget the tests that aren't won by German brands.
Additionally, it pays to wait for the next issue, as Tour does make the occasional error in calculating the scores.
Having said all that, DJ is right, as he usually is when there are numbers involved. Adjusting the weight score for the Rose would have two possible outcomes; either it still wins, or the AX bike wins. Another German. Then again, if you decide that 'front end comfort' (fork) isn't that important to you, the Cervelo comes out on top.
I get Tour Magazin in German and I notice most posters who react here either don't, or don't read it thoroughly (though I think Simon does, yes?) The one thing that makes their tests good, is transparency. Their scoring method may well be flawed or biased, but with the whole test in hand, you can make up your own mind, and even your own score. For example: in the 02.2015 aero bike test; if the S5 was equipped with 404's, like the Aeroad, it would've won (weight advantage). Taking apart the method, you can easily see that the S5 is the (slightly) faster choice for flat to rolling terrain. At which point, you can argue the choice of 'testing' (modelling) aero bikes in mountainous courses. Again, the article is transparent. The question of aero vs weight is put to a test that one might think favors weight. And it's shown that even the 'slower' aero bikes are faster in this model than a 6.8kg top end 'standard' road bike. Another reason the Aeroad does so well is that they've managed to make the aero seatpost compliant enough to score well in Tour's comfort test.
Now I'm not saying we shouldn't be sceptical of anything we read, nor that economic pressure isn't a factor in publishing/editorial decisions. I am saying that it isn't that strange that a German, engineering driven bike manufacturer builds bikes that score well in Germany's leading bike mag. I'll add that it still took time, as the previous Aeroad models didn't score that well, especially in the aerodynamics department, but many people ignore or forget the tests that aren't won by German brands.
Additionally, it pays to wait for the next issue, as Tour does make the occasional error in calculating the scores.
Having said all that, DJ is right, as he usually is when there are numbers involved. Adjusting the weight score for the Rose would have two possible outcomes; either it still wins, or the AX bike wins. Another German. Then again, if you decide that 'front end comfort' (fork) isn't that important to you, the Cervelo comes out on top.
.
I love you guys. Seriously.
_________________
I love you guys. Seriously.
_________________
airwise wrote:Something has to give IMHO and for me, I'd rather that was the weight of a Powerbar than the ride quality of my bike.
Oh don't exaggerate. 150g is three powerbars (lol).
cycling / nature / music
https://www.youtube.com/c/Millerbike01
https://www.youtube.com/c/Millerbike01
Kraaf wrote:First, though not in direct response to the OP: There's a common thread in the reaction here to Tour tests.
I get Tour Magazin in German and I notice most posters who react here either don't, or don't read it thoroughly (though I think Simon does, yes?) The one thing that makes their tests good, is transparency. Their scoring method may well be flawed or biased, but with the whole test in hand, you can make up your own mind, and even your own score. For example: in the 02.2015 aero bike test; if the S5 was equipped with 404's, like the Aeroad, it would've won (weight advantage). Taking apart the method, you can easily see that the S5 is the (slightly) faster choice for flat to rolling terrain. At which point, you can argue the choice of 'testing' (modelling) aero bikes in mountainous courses. Again, the article is transparent. The question of aero vs weight is put to a test that one might think favors weight. And it's shown that even the 'slower' aero bikes are faster in this model than a 6.8kg top end 'standard' road bike. Another reason the Aeroad does so well is that they've managed to make the aero seatpost compliant enough to score well in Tour's comfort test.
Now I'm not saying we shouldn't be sceptical of anything we read, nor that economic pressure isn't a factor in publishing/editorial decisions. I am saying that it isn't that strange that a German, engineering driven bike manufacturer builds bikes that score well in Germany's leading bike mag. I'll add that it still took time, as the previous Aeroad models didn't score that well, especially in the aerodynamics department, but many people ignore or forget the tests that aren't won by German brands.
Additionally, it pays to wait for the next issue, as Tour does make the occasional error in calculating the scores.
Having said all that, DJ is right, as he usually is when there are numbers involved. Adjusting the weight score for the Rose would have two possible outcomes; either it still wins, or the AX bike wins. Another German. Then again, if you decide that 'front end comfort' (fork) isn't that important to you, the Cervelo comes out on top.
Sorry for the off-topic but I am 99% sure that the S5 was tested also with the 404's. There were two different times, one with the original wheels and one with the 404's.
kgt wrote:Svetty wrote:kgt wrote:It is really amusing the fact you can buy two bikestore superbikes such as Rose X-lite for aprox the price of one RCA frameset.
Says the man who champions Cipollini frames in another thread
You 're right being sarcastic cause I did not explain myself:
What I find amusing is the fact so many fall into the 'Tour test trap'. Cervelo or Trek engineers loose the battle from Rose(?!) because their marketing is mostly based on the 'min weight / max stifness' numbers rhetoric. Sorry guys but you did it all wrong. It seems the german newbie does the work better than you even if its budget, R&D and pro racing experience are almost zero in comparison!
In my opinion a respected manufacturer should only base its position on 'ride quality'. That's what a top bike is all about and not a specific array of numbers. Of course numbers are part of this ride quality but not exclusively. That is why the manufacturers I respect do not get crazy 'analyzing' their frames in numbers but focus insted on gradually evolving a top ride quality.
Manufacturers like Colnago, Pinarello and, yes, Cipollini follow this route IMO.
I can tell you that Rose bikes are actually scoring quite high on ride characteristics. They also score high in reader tests in the Netherlands when pitted against a slew of other bikes. Indeed, usually they get docked on "image" and still finish high up.
So you are selling Rose short if you think they are just a brand for light+stiff soul-less bikes. It's a very well engineered and loved bike.
Also, that you are naming Rose the newbie is funny. I think you should check a bit in the timeline before saying something like that
Hint: the difference is almost half a century compared to Colnago and probably not in the direction you think
My criticism was against the "Tour magazine type of tests". Not against the bikes. I have nothing against Rose, Canyon, Stevens or any other similar brands. I am sure these are very nice bikes, light, stiff, responsive, well engineered etc. etc. On the other hand I would never buy one for many reasons. The main reason is they do nothing to me. That's all.
I 've read Rose's timeline. It's the timeline of a brand name, ok. That's not heritage IMO. Colnago is about the man himself from the very start until today. Pinarello, De Rosa, Campagnolo - as well as many other italian brands - is about the generations of a family. Cipollini is... Cipollini.
The way a brand is directly related to the passion, dream and hard work of certain persons. Ritchey, Parlee, Crumpton, Pegoretti... many, many examples.
I 've read Rose's timeline. It's the timeline of a brand name, ok. That's not heritage IMO. Colnago is about the man himself from the very start until today. Pinarello, De Rosa, Campagnolo - as well as many other italian brands - is about the generations of a family. Cipollini is... Cipollini.
The way a brand is directly related to the passion, dream and hard work of certain persons. Ritchey, Parlee, Crumpton, Pegoretti... many, many examples.
