Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
Are you sure they have not
Are you sure they have not just flipped the video for UK RHD viewing? A while back I saw a mirror-imaged Glen Coe in a car ad (can’t remember the manufacturer now).
Currently it is illegaly to
Currently it is illegaly to fly drones at low level over crowds, so it is not just the UCI who are stopping this. It needs the CAA/FAA to act. Drones are however used in sports where the competitors and crowds are separated such as skiing. The Marcel Hirscher near miss last winter gives some idea as to why you don’t want current drone technology too low overhead. There is a sequence to be followed here: Develop more reliable drones (and if you disagree I suggest you watch the Hirscher incident on youtube), change air law to allow flight over crowds, then the UCI can do something, but not before.
Just been through the same
Just been through the same thing with my Scott Addict. Before you rush off to the local bike shop, try and get a handle on what “doesn’t feel right” means. In my case I had two problems, firstly the stock seat was between, rather than under, my sit bones, giving the impression of the seat forcing the bones apart. Second, when in the drops, on a race geometry bike set up aggressively, I had perineal pain. A few here have suggested Specialized, with their 30 day no quibble return policy, and that’s the way I went. I found that a wider than standard fit (155mm) and perineal cutout solved my problems, with support under the bones in all riding positions. My new seat, Specialized Power Expert, did 60 hard miles today with perfect comfort. Your problem may be different, but I guess the point I am making is if you understand your problem, and what you are trying to achieve, it might help you solve the problem.
Maybe its time we all got
Maybe its time we all got “You are on video” printed on the back of our cycling jerseys!
As others have said, saddles
As others have said, saddles are personal and the only way is to try, however having just been through the same process, here is my tuppence worth. I recently bought a Scott Addict, and it is set up quite aggressive. I found the stock saddle to be sitting between, rather than under, the sit bones. When riding on the drops, the weight went onto the front end of those bones, where they meet under the perineum. Not good. I then took a Fizik Antares on test, and still found the saddle to be between the sit bones, and when on the drops, compressing too much soft tissue. A sit on the Specialized test pad showed that my sit bones are wider than average, and the shop recommended a 155mm width rather than the 143mm which most folk use. Specialzed offer a 30 day no quibble swap or credit voucher for the value of the seat. In theory you can go through their whole range, 30 days on each! I took the Power Expert, which has a short nose, wide cutout, and wide flat rear. My weight is now firmly on the sit bones, and even in the drops, no pressure on the soft tissue, but its early days yet. They also offer the Ronin, which has similar rear profile, but a narrower cutout and longer nose. Which one you go for depends on whether, like me, you sit on the back of the saddle all the time, or move about a lot and like to put weight on the nose.
Care to be more specific?
Care to be more specific?
Firstly, you have my sympathy
Firstly, you have my sympathy. This is an appalling incident, and I would love to be able to help, but sadly I suspect anyone who saw any of this would already have come forward. You suggest that you have not reported it to the police, but surely anyone who saw anything would report it to them. You need to report it, who knows they may be waiting to join the dots.
I’m sure when the dust settles you won’t give up cycling on this basis, and I certainly hope you don’t. After all, similar things have unfortunately happened to pedestrians and drivers, and we can’t all just go home and lock ourselves in. You may however want to get a bike-cam for your peace of mind.
The answer is on the links
The answer is on the links you posted! Harry and Brian Walker are both involved in Walker Brothers, which is owned and run by Brian who also hand builds their wheels. Revolver wheels are designed and built by Harry.
Hi lukas1, My Scott addict,
Hi lukas1, My Scott addict, collected 4 days ago looks very similar to your pics, in fact I started a thread on this. The explanation from Scott is that on Matt frames they like to show off the quality of their carbon layup. Their matt black bikes are sprayed from the sides only, with surfaces facing up or down only receving overspray. The result is that the bits you see as a rider – top of the top tube and down tube are bare carbon, with the seam visible. Also, as these bits are subject to overspray only, each bike is different. I gather from responses that matt frames from many manufacturers are the same, and if you really want an even finish, yo need to go for a colour, or gloss finish.
Hi roadgenius4,
Hi roadgenius4,
I can’t comment on either of the Giant bikes, but having upgraded over the weekend from a £600 Al bike with carbon forks (similar in price and construction to a Defy4), to a £2.5k carbon bike (not unlike a TCR), then maybe I can give you first impressions, hot from the press.
My Aluminium bike is a Trek series 1, Claris 16 speed (like an original Defy 4), but race geometry whereas the Defy is Endurance. I don’t have the advantage of your wheel and gear upgrades. The bike weighs in at around 10Kg.
New bike, Scott Addict 20, Ultegra gears and rim brakes. 7.1Kg without pedals.
Although both are race geometry, the Addict is marginally more aggressive than Trek, having a stack/reach ratio of 1.44 as opposed to 1.49 in my size. The store also set the Scott up with the bars quite low, and with the two bikes standing side by side, seats are the same height, bars on the Scott about 5cm lower. It remains to be seen whether I stick with this setup, or depending on how the vertebrae fare after a few rides, I need raise the bars.
The Scott came with 52/36 chainset as opposed to 50/34 on the Trek, so the Scott is geared higher by 4% and 6% in high and low ranges respectively.
Application of a bit of basic Physics suggested that on hills where weight is the limiting factor, the 3Kg drop in weight on 80Kg all up, would give me an extra 4.5% in speed, or about an extra half a gear. I didn’t expect to notice much difference on the flat.
Out on the road, Physics theory went out the window, and the carbon Scott was faster right from the off. It is difficult to conclude too much from one ride due to many variables (wind, traffic etc), but on a regular route which I must have done 30 times on the Trek, on my first outing on the Scott I covered the 26 miles marginally quicker than my previous PB, despite still getting used to the bike. Oddly though, while I found the hills to be a complete breeze, I did not beat my previous hill segment PBs, but did arrive at the top less fatigued. Clearly I took advantage of the new bike to take it easy instead of mashing the pedals as hard as before. Must try harder next time.
So if I didn’t get that extra speed climbing, clearly the bike is faster everywhere else, and that was the impression while riding. The highest gear was used about the same amount of time on the Scott, despite being 4% higher ratio, which I guess means 4% quicker. Ease off and it doesn’t slow as much, no need to change down as much, and the acceleration is phenomenal. Why? I guess lots of little things. I didn’t give too much credibility to the semi-aero frame argument, but maybe it, plus the more head down position, gave me something. The Trek’s standard Bontrager wheels never ran totally true, those on the Scott do (at least to my eye), so I guess that would also help. Maybe even the stiffer frame means more power to the wheels and less twisting the BB. Hard to explain, but it is just a faster bike.
But a bike is about more than sheer speed. Downhill, the handling on the Scott is extremely confidence building. Think about where you want to go, and it goes there, where with the Trek, it sometimes feels as if I am manhandling the bike round the corner. This might sound odd, but it feels like a smaller bike, due the agility it has.
Now we all hear a lot about less “road buzz” on a carbon frame. To be honest, through the bars, I didn’t notice a difference (but then my Trek does have a carbon fork). Through the seat, there was certainly less vibration on a rough road surface, but road level changes due to potholes or joints in the road surface, I felt it more with the Scott, and a couple of times it seemed to skip. I put this down to the carbon absorbing higher frequencies, but the stiffer frame not handling lower frequencies like those from potholes quite as well.
Final point on brakes: A month ago I was looking at disks, due to the poor performance of my Trek’s unbranded rim brakes, no doubt in the name of keeping the price low, compared to mt MTB disk brakes. All I can say is that the Ultegra brakes on syncros rims would stop a freight train. I have now changed sides in the disk brake argument. All those ex MTB’ers like myself, would maybe be as well off upgrading their rim brakes rather than buying disks.
Back to your original question “Is it worth upgrading to carbon”. Absolutely no doubt in my mind, but as I hope I’ve explained, it’s not all about weight. Don’t however expect a new bike to knock 10% of your route times. At the end of the day the limiting factor is your own legs. In my case I now need to think about whether or not to keep the alloy bike. I had originally intended to keep it for bad weather, but I will need to be seriously motivated to get back on it!
Take a look at the race
Take a look at the race pedigree of the Focus Cayo, as used by the French AG2R team to great success in Le Tour among others. Light, quality build, internal cables. With your budget you could get a decent 105 configuration on a frame with genuine race pedigree which has plenty of scope for upgrade at a later date, and is different enough so you won’t just be one of the crowd. (I have no bias here, I have just shelled out £2.5k on a Scott Addict!)
Many thanks to those who have
Many thanks to those who have responded so far. The Rose certainly seems very well specc’ed, and seems to be very well liked by owners. What about this alleged soft rear / stiff front a couple of reviewers have commented on?
