BMC TMR01 vs. Giant Propel

Discuss light weight issues concerning road bikes & parts.
Posts: 1536
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 7:13 am


hey jock, the recent tour test seems to suggest your inclinations are correct. There weren't any of the big aero names in that test and it was still MOP if I recall.

Posts: 1049
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 8:31 pm

by airwise

Actually the BMC was runner up in the aero test - just 0.2w down on the winner if you are talking about aerodynamics. Their best "measuring" aero frame the Venge saved a further whopping 4 watts or so at the very fast 45 kph used. Other "big name" frames offer even less of a gain.

The BMC was marked down for being heavy and uncomfortable - hardly fair as it's an aero bike ;)

In all seriousness, the standout in that test for me was the Neil Pryde Alize which was very close to the test winners and doesn't ride too badly (if you forgive the jarring front end which is a factor with all NP framesets I've ridden). But no doubt it will be ignored by many because it's not "big name".

Posts: 2272
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 1:35 pm
Location: Geneva

by ultyguy

To me, I'd rather give a little on comfort not to lose the handling and power transfer of a normal bike. I also think that over 3-4 hours, speeds at my level tend to drop from the aero important 40-45 kph avg, down to 30-35 (usually because more hills anyways). Also around 3 hours, I tend to start feeling fatigue from vibrations etc.

Conclusion? I'd love have either of these puppies for a 3ish hour race, but a pair of aero wheels on a really good, traditional frameset provides the best of all world for me.

Posts: 1049
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 8:31 pm

by airwise

I'm the same. The simple fact appears to be that any aero bike puts carbon in places detrimental to all other ride qualities. You need to be really sure that the benefits outweigh the drawbacks.

Posts: 921
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 8:09 pm

by Zigmeister

The more I look at the Propel, the more I like it.

One thing of note is the brake design. Streamlined behind the fork and the normal location on the stays. The cables are still kind of in the airflow, but the air can flow smoothly over the brakes themselves, which seems to help.

Servicing/access/cleaning them at this location seems much easier than the BMC. With its crazy/silly front cover over the HT/fork area which you have to remove screws to get to it.

Same with the lower/below the BB brake setup. The idea of my brakes being right under the BB gathering every bit of dirt/debris/water etc...seems like the worst place you would want a brake pad to sit...all you need is a bunch more grit/sand/dirt to get on your brake pads and start grinding your expensive carbon wheel brake tracks down. I think on the BMC there is a plastic cover over the BB brake mount area to help avoid this, but like the new Felt AR FRD, I don't believe there is a fairing to cover it.

Giant is supposed to be about the lightest frame of any aero one made today. 200gms lighter than the Foil, 500gms than the S5 and the others like the Venge in between those two. 8oz is 8oz...that is a significant weight savings that is more inline with regular non-aero frames, with claimed stiffness of the best bikes any shape. Waiting for test on this though from the mags. But it will likely be right up there with the best on aero/weight and stiffness when we do find out some more numbers.

Problem is, good luck finding one without having to pay retail at the dealer...$4k for a frameset...ouch.

Posts: 143
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 9:47 am

by Philbar72

Actually servicing the brakes is pretty easy, and low maintenance, once you have them set up correctly. the only issue i have is with rims that are of various widths, take for example dura ace c24’s and c50’s one is around 21mm wide (the c24), the other is 23mm wide (the c50). To enable the c24’s to work properly I need to put 2 1mm spacers in each of the v-brakes, but once adjusted, they are fine for the time they are on the bike. My other wheels ( the c50’s) don’t require any more spacers to be added. I also keep a set of handbuilts for general purpose riding that are 23mm wide on the rims. So as you can see the best way of working is probably use the handbuilts and c50’s.

If you were using the c24’s and something like a zipp 404, then I’d fear for your sanity! Spacertastic!

another issue is with running certain tyres.

On the bike I had an issue with Force and attack tyres, the attacks just don’t last as their puncture protection band is very narrow and I recently had an issue with a protruding inner tube after a small cut soon turned into a 1 cm tear…. On the front attack tyre. Note the force tyre has been excellent.

So I replaced the front with a gp4000s 25mm, thinking it would give better aero and ride properties. The only issue is that there is now only around 2 to 2.5mm clearance between the wheel and the frame… that doesn’t seem enough, should I maybe replace this with a 23mm 4000s? I don’t have pics btw…

Posts: 179
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2013 10:51 pm

by MarkTwain

airwise wrote:Their best "measuring" aero frame the Venge saved a further whopping 4 watts or so at the very fast 45 kph used.

For those fast enough to hit those speeds, they will appreciate 4 watts saving is nothing to be condescending about saving.

Posts: 1049
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 8:31 pm

by airwise

And who might they be Mark?

User avatar
Posts: 3762
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 6:02 am
Location: On the bike

by 53x12

"Marginal gains are the only gains when all that's left to gain is in the margins."

User avatar
Posts: 6059
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

by Calnago

53x12 wrote:Image

+1000! :lol: Lock it! It's done.
Colnago C64 - The Naked Build; Colnago C60 - PR99; Trek Koppenberg - Where Emonda and Domane Meet;
Unlinked Builds (searchable): Colnago C59 - 5 Years Later; Trek Emonda SL Campagnolo SR; Special Colnago EPQ

Posts: 1049
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 8:31 pm

by airwise

Yep sorry to labour the point - it's just that in my case 45 kph on the flat equates to around 360w or over 5 w/kg so firstly 4 watts is circa 1% and secondly I will not be able to maintain that pace for long. I don't know if many amateurs that can.

Posts: 700
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2011 7:53 am

by tinozee

Is there a way to strip the aero debate out of this thread? I am curious about the comparison between these frames' ride qualities.

Posts: 331
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2008 6:33 pm

by r_mutt

Isn't that like comparing the air conditioning of 2 cars made for the dragstrip?

Posts: 1049
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 8:31 pm

by airwise

Well the recent Tour test decreed that the BMC rode like a plank of wood and a Giant owner on here seemed to suggest the Propel was equally unpalatable.

Posts: 195
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2011 8:08 pm

by VNTech

Can't comment on the BMC, but the Propel rides quite well. I'd classify it as "highly acceptable." It's stiff in the right directions. Not overly uncomfortable. If you want aero, it's one of the best options. The only aero bikes that ride better are the Foil (if you like stiff) and the Madone. The Propel tests significantly faster in the tunnel than both. Again, it's all about what you value. (and just because you dislike something that is valued by others doesn't make them wrong, by the way.)

The major problem with it is the brakes. They are dumb, no doubt about it. Workable, but dumb. Too bad we can't buy the custom-machined version that Belkin was riding. Someone could make some, I suppose; it's a very simple design.
VeloNews Magazine/ tech

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Last post