Quote:
|
Originally Posted by HLC
Let us know how you go! But racing in the wet is good fun!
In terms of groupsets, the general consensus is that SRAM is pretty noisy and clunky unless you go RED which IIRC is top of the line.
Shmano stuff is much better. Or if you can stretch, get some passionate Italian gear. Campagnolo Super Record 11! Mmmmmmm
Ive got 3 mates each with a carbon roadie each, 2 trek's and a Giant. One has 105, 1 has Ultegra and one has Dura Ace.
The trek with 105 was around 1500 and is nice, although my mate just put a set of Campagnolo Shamal Ultra's on there for $800 and it goes real well. then next up was the trek with Ultegra, that was about 3200. The Giant with DA and Mavic Ksyriums SL wheels was like 5500 or something ridiculous.
In all honesty, for someone getting into road riding, the trek with 105 and a nice set of wheels would be fine. And still cheaper than the trek with Ultegra.
In saying that, I found the Ultegra shifted niced than the 105, however the notice between DA and Ultegra was negligible. I believe the DA is a slightly lighter groupset. Dura Ace Di2 on the other hand would be a completely different kettle of fish.
So in summary, if it was me, I would stretch the budget to a carbon frame/Ultegra set up, it may be overkill at first but you will 'grow' into it. However, I would be just as happy with carbon/105 and a nice set of wheels!
Keep In mind, carbon can/will fatigue over years and one crash can kill it all! So think about longevity and how long you are planning on keeping these things as an upgrade to a better groupset may be futile. There is always bikesure though!!!
Cheers
|
Great post mate, thanks for your advice.
I am thinking of going a full entry level carbon frame with maybe a set of 105's with the option of upgrading later. Although the thought of the frame fatiguing within a few years sounds concerning since you are paying more $ for it in the first place. I am not adverse to getting a alloy frame with carbon forks, better wheels and Ultegra components either if it means I get to keep the bike a few more years than I would over a carbon.
I love the thought of light weight framed bikes and from what I have been told makes a difference over alloy when climbing, but what what are talking about here in the difference of weight? 1-2kg or more and an increase of a minimum of $500+ to go carbon?
Currently my hybrid weighs in at a hefty 13kg plus accessories. So more than likely over 14kg plus water etc. I have seen alloy/carbon components and 105s weigh in at about 9kgs. To some shaving weight is crucial and are willing to pay extra for the privilege. The carbon bike kit probably weighs in at 5,6,7 kgs?
In the end, I'm not a pro cyclist and never will be, but I still want to have the best gear I can for what I do that in turn will last me. I ride 50km a week total, which isn't a lot compared to some, but I intend on increasing that mileage over time. I want the bike or the bike frame to last me say about 5 years? So in saying that, it sounds like I would be better off sticking with a alloy/carbon fork bike setup (in case I crash it), pay extra for better wheels and tires and the Ultegra's and enjoy the longevity of the bike that way.
Thoughts?
Also, I heard its possibly worth paying good money for kevlar tires to avoid punctures. I hate the thought of being stranded changing a tire at night. I have done my basic bike course and know how to change a tire, but if I can avoid having to do so I will. So do you think its worth going the bit extra for kevlar tires matched with real good light weight rims in the long run?