Rose RS-3000 vs X-Lite CRS 3000 vs X-Lite CW 3000 (Al vs C)

[Tomace]

I don't want to make this into a real carbon vs aluminium thread, but I 'd like to know whether it's worth to upgrade from aluminium to carbon.

I'm riding a Rose X-Lite bike for many years now and would like to get an additional compact bike, since mine comes with a triple chainset and got quite some mileage on its back.

I do like the looks of all bikes and there is only a difference in weight between the X-Lite CRS and RS of 100g, while the CW is even 100g more than the RS.

In terms of weight the field is really close together. All bike come with the Ultegra group, so I guess this makes it even harder to find differences in the components used to build the bikes. Let's keep the wheelsets by the side, since I got a pair of Eurus wheels which will likely make it into the new bike.

So, it's cooking down to carbon vs aluminium and whether it's worth to go aero for additional 1.000€.

If I'm riding in a race, I wonder whether the aero effect of the frame is making a difference at all, since you are usually riding in the wind shadow of the guys in front of you. And when you are leading the group, well, then I guess it might come in handy, but whether this is worth to spend a lot more money? After all this is a hobby and no profession.

I never had any trouble with my aluminium frame and never hated it for being too direct or hard. Carbon is supposed to make your ride more comfortable, but I wonder whether this is something you feel. What else might be nicer with a carbon frame?

I guess a lot of people are "upgrading" to carbon because it feels more professional, but I wonder whether they are any faster or happier with a carbon bike compared to aluminium.

Can anybody give me some tips and hints on this subject and probably on the bikes mentioned? Unfortunately last years CW 3000 is already sold out. Although it was more than 300g heavier than this years one.

Cheers
Tom

[CPongpanich]

Hi Tom,

I think the aero benefit is there, but as you said, in a peloton, you might not be able to feel a big difference or any different at all. There are a lot of pros who still ride and win on traditional (non-aero) bikes, so I think the rider is a more important factor.

In this case, I would suggest you to go with either an RS or X-Lite CRS as you are not sponsored and will invest your own money on the bike. In the worst case, if you happen to crash (I hope not) you will be less likely to suffer a great financial loss.

If you really want an aero benefit, you can put on a pair aero wheels which I think affect the aerodynamics as much or even more than the frame.

To add to the complication, I would suggest you to look at the Xeon CRS-3000 as well. I have that bike myself, and it is an amazing bike. It is fast, nimble and stiff but at the same time light and comfortable.

Cheers
Chanon

[Tomace]

Hi,

thanks for the tip! I've been in Bocholt 3 weeks ago and spoke to one of the sales persons running around about the X-Lite CRS and the CRS. He told me that the X-Lite would be manufactured in a different way than the CRS which would give you a lot benefit in terms of stability. As far as I understood the old way was to place the carbon layers on an inflated core. This would result in some kind of "noses" inside of the frame, adding weight and giving less stability. The X-Lite is supposed to work with a wax like core which is much more even. Also the bottom bracket area would be stiffer.

No idea if you can feel the difference or if this is simply something on the paper. I remember buying my first Hifi. Reading all the tests in the magazines let you wonder whether you can hear any difference or if this something like a modern religion you need to believe in.

Can you compare riding aluminium to carbon bikes? Is is just another material or a different riding experience?

Cheers
Tom

[CPongpanich]

Hi,

Thanks for the information regarding the carbon layering of the 2 models, I have never heard that from any other sources.

For the carbon vs aluminium, I would say that carbon as a material is the winner in this case. Carbon fibre gives the developers and engineers the ability to customise and design the frame more flexibly. They can make the frame stiff in one load direction and compliance in the other and can make virtually any shapes for the tube for maximum aerodynamics or other applications.

However, that does not mean that carbon bikes will be better than aluminium bikes.

To answer your question, generally, aluminium bikes feel harsher and more direct but carbon bikes feel more planted and smoother on rough road surfaces which is a good thing during curves or descend as it gives you more traction and not skidding all over. In the end it comes down to your personal preference. But I would say most people prefer the riding characteristics or carbon bikes.

BTW you are from Germany? You mentioned that you went to the Rose Biketown.

Cheers
Chanon

[Tomace]

Yeah, close to Düsseldorf. So Rose is almost around the corner (75km). Though I also lived for quite some time in Sheffield.

I only wonder since carbon is more comfy, will energy "disappear" during cycling in the frame which was supposed to go into my accelaration? Or is the way they put the layers of carbon onto the frame so clever that it will take the energy from bumps in the road away, but maintain my cycling energy?

Cheers
Tom

[CPongpanich]

It's all about layering of the carbon fibre. It is because the carbon fibre is only stiff in one direction only. I think Canyon puts it quite nicely with their VCLS which Vertically Compliance but Laterally Stiff. It means that they can design the bike (and the layering of the bike frame in particular areas) to be compliance when the force acts vertically with the bike, that is, when you go over bumps the bike absorbs it like a suspension. But when you apply the force through the pedals, your force acts with the bike laterally (sideways) and the bike will be stiff. So in theory your energy will not disappear.

Cheers!

[calleking]

Good explanation CPongpanich!

[Tomace]

Been in Bocholt again today for an inspection and did have some time to look at all the bikes.

What might be interesting to some of you is that the black/dull RS bikes are supposed to be 150g lighter than the shiny ones with a lacquer coating.

I wondered why the white and black/red frames were smooth like a carbon frame, while the black and black/yellow ones showed all the seams on the surface where the parts are welded together. Seems that the filler which is used to smoothen the welds won't survive the oven which bakes in the black color (I just repeat what I'm told). And the black color uses much less paint compared to all the layers of the lacquered frames.

Only wonder whether the 6,85kg is the weight for the black bikes. The others would be around 7kg probably.

Do have some problems with the completely black bike. Looks really strange and bumpy (the finish). The "black" carbon frames are completely gray compared to the RS black and look nice (e.g. team edition). This seasons design isn't really my favourite one. Loved the former ones though.

Cheers

[CPongpanich]

The black/dull is referred to as matted black so there is only black paint applied to the frame. But with shiny frames they have lacquer coating applied as well hence more weight. For the bumpy finish, that is what makes it dull because if it's smooth the light will reflect from it like a mirror therefore not a matte finish.

With carbon bikes, they only applied the lacquer to the raw carbon fibre and because carbon fibre naturally has a very dark grey colour that is why it appears to be a lighter in shade than black aluminium frames which are painted black.

With the weight, yes, it will be 7kg. if the lacquer coating is really 150g. heavier than the matted frames.

BTW. I like the way staffs at the Biketown are very insightful and honest in their answers. I have never been there myself but learning from you they seems to be.

Cheers

[attesa38]

Thanks with this thread... i can get many info that i want

[Tomace]

I agree with your view regarding the staff.

In general I feel they are straight forward and honest. I never felt that they wanted to push me towards the carbon bike. The contrary. Also I favour the idea of a carbon bike, I got the feeling that the RS will be sufficient. O.k., X-Lite team is something else. 6.4kg. I placed them next to each other and you feel it instantly. But if you fall in one of these fun races 3.300€ are pretty much gone.

[Tomace]

P.S.: I need to give them a call. A lot of the images depicting the RS in black finish look grayish/dull (great!). Being there the frames in the showroom sucked in all light, appearing truly black. Big discrepancy. Wonder how it actually looks.... : ) Wonder whether they production changed anything or why the frames look so different.

My impression:
https://roadcyclinguk.com/gear/rose-bik ... -look.html

Nicer, lighter look:
http://road.cc/content/news/77365-just- ... on-rs-3000

[CPongpanich]

Yeah, that's why I suggested to go with an aluminium bike as long as you don't race seriously and absolutely need a carbon bike. A little touch of wheel can throw your 3000+ euros out of the window instantly.

Regarding the colour, it might be different finishes on different year model?

[Tomace]

Doesn't seem so. Caled them and the guy on the phone confirmed that it is really dark black. Very strange, if you look at the test at road.cc. This looks like gray.

Just watched some videos on the Tour 99-03. Just from the looks I'd say everybody in the Peloton would have been happy to ride a Rose RS back then.

[Tomace]

Finally decided to go for the black finish. Struggled a bit, since yellow looked quite nice, but is a bit too special for my taste. Since it's supposed to be a competition bike, saving the 150-200g for the extra paint seemed to be the logical decision. Otherwise it's going to be stock componenets. Just want to get the Superflow 45 from Selle as an extra.

52/36 - 11/32 in order to be able to go up long steep climbs.

Cheers
Tom