It’s an exciting time when you decide to buy a new bike, but it’s also an expensive choice to make, wherever you are budget-wise… so, it’s important to get it right of course. Here are some personal thoughts around features or standards that I simply must have, ideally have, and actively don’t want, plus the pros and cons of each.
You may be just after a new frameset, and looking to move your existing components and wheels across. This is certainly a cost-effective way to upgrade. However, there is quite a strong line to cross now, namely wheel and brake type compatibility. If you have an older 130mm rear axle wheel, quick releases and rim braked bike, then the options to move much of your gear across are reduced, but it is still possible.
There are just a smaller selection of frames to choose from than before. On the other hand, if you’re already in the 142mm axle width wheel and hydraulic brake world, then there are many more options of frames open to you.
I have a mix of requirements that I’m looking for. I like classic frame aesthetics, as well as forward-thinking tech standards. I don’t need to have the very latest gear, and there is a compromise between features and cost too.
Finally, before we get into it – the idea of this article isn’t to say that you shouldn’t have your own ideas or preferences, or that anything is right-er or wrong-er than anything else. It’s just my opinion, about what works for me and why!
Frame features
I’m pretty frame material agnostic, having ridden most every type except magnesium. Some designs are excellent, some not so. This is often down to the design rather than the material. That said, I do have a soft spot for a steel frame, and it is a mix of ride quality, aesthetics, and the durability and repairability of the material that appeals to me. Granted a steel frame can be a little heavier than some other frame types, and you might be adding up to a kilo/2.2lbs onto the overall weight of the bike. It matters if you’re racing, but maybe less so if you’re not racing anymore…
More important are the standards used on a particular frame. I want to use modern standards for wheels and brakes in particular. So the frame must have 12mm axles, with 142mm rear spacing and 100mm at the front.
Next I want to use a carbon fork. A tapered steerer is great mix of weight and strength when compared to a straight 1 1/8 steerer tube. So the frame must use a tapered head tube, or an X44 head tube. Remember you can always sleeve a bigger tube down, but you can’t increase a smaller one up in size! Talking of which, I want a 27.2mm round seatpost. The frame can use a larger size of seatpost hole, and I can shim it down to size if I like. This is useful if you want to use a dropper post for example. As I’m speccing a road bike, 27.2mm will be fine. This size gives you great versatility in choice of seatposts as well as being able to dial in comfort. A titanium seatpost can be a great choice in this regard.
Moving down the frame to the bottom bracket, I personally favour two standards: good old BSA 68mm, or the new T47 standard. Again, with the T47 you can sleeve down a bigger hole. There is a choice of inboard or external bearings, as well as being able to accommodate different axle diameters. You’ll probably notice that they are both threaded standards.
I’ve never had an issue with BSA 68mm bottom brackets, and a Shimano 24mm Hollowtech axle with a BBR60 bottom bracket has reliably worked for me for a long time, so either system is good for me. A good reason to move to T47 is if you want really wide tyres. It allows the chain stays to potentially sit wider. As I’m only planning to use a 32mm tyre width as a maximum, a 68mm shell will be fine.
The next personal requirement is to have the ability to fit mudguards. I ride all year round, and in all weathers, other than when it’s icy. Mudguards make a huge difference to winter riding. Not only to yourself, but to anybody riding behind you, so clearance and eyelets are needed.
Fixed mudguards are more secure and aesthetically better than the clip-on rubber band type, in my opinion. I aim to use 28mm tyres and mudguards, but a few millimetres of extra clearance will allow me to try slightly wider tyres, should I choose to use them.
Next, I want flatmount disc brake mounts. This is the road standard, and it works well as well as looking good. I also want the rear disc to sit within the rear triangle. This keeps the calliper out of the way of mudguard stays, or a rack. Talking of the the rear triangle, I prefer to have the stays meet the top tube, as it’s a bit more classic-looking in my opinion. Dropped stays are potentially stiffer and offer a more direct feeling, but don’t suit the aesthetic as well.
The final standard that I’d ideally like is a universal derailleur hanger (UDH) mount. I think UDH is a good idea going forward. I’d then use a converter to use a conventional derailleur. Having this standard would allow potential future swaps to a SRAM wireless system, should I want it. Maybe other brands will use it going forward, but either way I’m covered.
Now, onto things that I’m ambivalent about… namely hidden cables and hoses. I have no issue with a couple or four cables below the bars, but I understand the aesthetic of having it all hidden, and why people like it. I maintain my own bikes, and want easy access to everything. I don’t mind cables running through the frame, but have an issue with them routing through the headset. I want to be able to swap a stem, change the headset bearings or raise the bars, without it becoming a seriously major job.
I also want the ability to run a mechanical/hydraulic groupset, and then maybe move to an electronic shift system in the future. I appreciate that it might mean having a couple of redundant braze-ons on the frame, but I’m ok with that. That versatility of function appeals to me greatly.
So where did all this deliberation take me? Well, for me, the Fairlight Strael frameset seems to answer pretty much all of my requirements. It has a good blend of classic, yet contemporary looks, an amazing versatility of setup, and all the modern standards that I want. From all reports – including 10/10 road.cc reviews for successive iterations – it rides pretty well too. Others on my shortlist are from Kinesis Bikes, Mason Cycles, Condor Bikes, Independent Fabrication, the Vitus Venon Evo, as well as a custom frame by Rourke Handbuilt Cycles or similar frame builder.
While I save up, I’ll keep an eye out for any other interesting options. That’s part of the fun isn’t it?
2 thoughts on “As I search for a brand new bike, here are the features and standards I’ll be looking for”
Generally I agree with a lot
Generally I agree with a lot of the thoughts here. However, a couple of areas where my advice would differ slightly:
Firstly, I have heard T47 bottom brackets aren’t ideal with modern SRAM groupsets (with 30mm spindles), as the relatively narrow BB shell (47mm, hence the name) and wide spindle leave relatively little room for bearings. A wider BB shell (e.g. BSA 68mm), or narrower spindle (Shimano uses 24mm) are therefore better options.
I would also be realistic about your upgrade plans, and suggest buying the bike you want with the features you want today, and don’t make compromises about things you might want to change in the future (but probably won’t). Specifically:
I wouldn’t get larger diameter seat/headtubes with the intention of reducing them down using sleeves. Adding reducer sleeves is just another avenue for poor tolerances, more places for dirt to gather, potential for movement etc. In short, increases the chance of introducing creaking and/or premature wear. If you absolutely have to use a reducer sleeve in the future then fine, but I would just aim to start with a sensible, common standard, and hope you can also find natively compatible parts if you do ever need to replace them.
I wouldn’t run mechanical gearing fully internally, so if you want the sleek, fully integrated look, buy an electronic groupset upfront. But modern mecahnical groupsets are very good, so if you get one of them, it seems unlikely you’ll ever actually upgrade. I’m not judging either way (I have bikes with electronic and mechanical groupsets), I’m just saying don’t pick your frame based on a pipedream of upgrading down the line (especially when a groupset can cost more than the frame itself!)
T47 should be a godsend but
T47 should be a godsend but instead they’ve managed to fuck it up with wafer thin tool engagement on the internal bearing ones coupled with some serious torque requirements. To the point that tool manufacturers have come up with tool retainer systems to reduce the chance of you taking a huge chunk out of the lovely custom frame you’ve just bought or, less seriously, your knuckles when it inevitably cams out.