Thank you all for your contribution here, it is interesting discussion
robeambro wrote: ↑
Wed Mar 13, 2019 9:05 pm
My only suggestion is to pay close attention to the geometry.
To quote two of those, the Orca size 55 has a stack of 584, reach 387. The TCR size M (which would be roughly the equivalent) has a stack of 545, reach 383. So you're looking at two bikes with a 4 cm difference in stack, which is by no means small. Figure out your fit first, I'd say..
You want a bike that is LIGHT and COMFORTABLE.
LIGHT: I would guess all of those frames will be within 100-200gr of each other. The lightest bike will be the one you can get with the best and lightest components. So probably Canyon or Giant may come with a better spec for the same money.
COMFORTABLE: here the situation gets intricated, as comfort comes from a wide array of factors, main ones being tires, wheels, saddle, seatpost, and so on. All the bikes you mentioned will be fairly comfortable in their own right - there may be differences but nothing outrageous, as you're not comparing a full-on aero bike with 23mm tires versus a plush endurance bike on 28mm tires.
Aerodynamics weren't mentioned as a criterion, but I will say that some of the bikes you mention (notably TCR, Emonda, Supersix..) are not really that much optimised for aerodynamics, which means especially on flats you may be looking at a small wattage penalty versus some of the others.
I have recently ordered a SL6, but it's not as traditional-looking as you would like probably. Among those you mentioned, I'd consider the R5.
I agree, every one of them have different geometry... BTW you should compare Orbea Orca size 55 with Giant TCR size ML...
I know that lighter usually means stiffer/harsher ride...
I think Giant would be the lightest and the cheapest... I know the frames are superbly build (Giant manufacture frames for other bike "manufacturers"), I know it rides superbly... I have also looked at Merida Scultura, but...
I know both names are well known in the bike world, but I would like something a litte more exotic if I can
I think 28mm should be comfortable, and with tubeless setup even more... I'm 50/50 for tubeless, I don't like monthly adding sealant in the tyres, and reassembling them when sealant dryes and clogs the valves... When they make sealant that lasts longer (at least one year), I will be convinced that tubeless are the way to go...
I know this is wheight-weenies, but a few grams here and there is not so important for me, neither is the aero... There are certanly some gains on higher speeds, but I'm not a pro, and for me personally, it's not that important...
You are correct for SL6, I'm looking at traditional looking frame... If Sl6 was in the game, there would also be BMC Teammachine, Willier Cento, and other bikes...
Beaver wrote: ↑
Wed Mar 13, 2019 1:20 pm
So the Tarmac SL6 should be better here, did it have a different wheelset?
And in the latest Tour mag. test the Canyon Aeroad with the "normal" (but designed for flex) Carbon seatpost was as comfortable as the Madone with IsoSpeed...
Like I said, I'm looking for a traditional looking frame...
Aeroad vs Madone and comfort, that's hard to believe, maybe personal opinion of the rider/tester?
kgt wrote: ↑
Wed Mar 13, 2019 9:14 am
You may add Time Alpe d'Huez to the list.
Besides it's too much money, sorry, but I don't like the look of that triangle where seat-post, seat-tube and top-tube joins...
zappafile123 wrote: ↑
Wed Mar 13, 2019 11:08 pm
I think you're right. There is definitely a ownership bias going on. But honestly, direct comparison between the 2012 Evo HM and the 2019 SW SL6, the latter is much more responsive, feels stiffer, does a bit job of dulling out big bumps, and feels a lot faster. Simply it feels like a superior frame on all fronts. This is all subjective right - Im sure if we timed my rides with the same setup, there would be a handful of seconds between the two rigs.
Have you tried newer EVO HM?