£500 road bike - any recommendations?

[outlash]

what does kidology mean? im not sure...

exactly what is it thats night n day about the caad, and have you conducted control experiments to evaluate the difference? is it the frame, wheels, gears, geometry, price point, maybe the sizing just worked better for you, etc etc. have you weighed the respective bare frames if weights the key? how do the two bikes figure if you ride each with the same parts specs?

or is it down to looks, perceived weight advantage and the principle of spend more, be fitter?

I love it when forumites take it personally when someone says something negative about what they own...

I upgraded the wheels on my old Triban which obviously made a difference (IIRC, someone of this parish said they were 'boat anchors'), they're now sitting on the CAAD so I think I can give a fairly informed opinion. The CAAD rides significantly better, it 'glides' over tarmac whereas the Triban you feel every lump and bump and I felt you had to push it along to keep the speed up. The handling on the CAAD gives you confidence, there's none of the twitchiness that my Triban seemed to have. Also, being noticeably lighter, a bit easier up a climb. IMO, it's a better bike.

But what do I know? I'm just some bloke on a forum giving my opinion. YMMV.


Tony.

 

[Peteaud]

If you are considering an entry level bike with 2300 gearing (or whatever the replacement is with the silly name), go ride one and check you can get on with the thumb shifter - some can't, some can (seems to depend on the size of your hands).

I am not sure what features you mean in terms of not enhancing the overall experience - that may add cost? Bikes are pretty straightforward and all of the bits are there for a reason - to make it work, easier to work, make it lighter or to look more aesthetically pleasing (although this is pretty subjective), make it more practical as a commuter/tourer etc

The wife's bike has 2300 with the thumb shifts, she has small hands and it was one of the reasons she went for that shifter.

 

[Cyclist33]

I love it when forumites take it personally when someone says something negative about what they own...

I upgraded the wheels on my old Triban which obviously made a difference (IIRC, someone of this parish said they were 'boat anchors'), they're now sitting on the CAAD so I think I can give a fairly informed opinion. The CAAD rides significantly better, it 'glides' over tarmac whereas the Triban you feel every lump and bump and I felt you had to push it along to keep the speed up. The handling on the CAAD gives you confidence, there's none of the twitchiness that my Triban seemed to have. Also, being noticeably lighter, a bit easier up a climb. IMO, it's a better bike.

But what do I know? I'm just some bloke on a forum giving my opinion. YMMV.


Tony.

just for the record, challenging you to back up your claim analytically is not "taking it personally", and i dont own either of the bikes in question anyway.

thank you for the analysis.

 

[MaxInc]

I am not sure what features you mean in terms of not enhancing the overall experience - that may add cost? Bikes are pretty straightforward and all of the bits are there for a reason - to make it work, easier to work, make it lighter or to look more aesthetically pleasing (although this is pretty subjective), make it more practical as a commuter/tourer etc

Things like lighther wheels and smoother shifters and such. While I would not argue that they are superior component and that I will feel a certain difference, I'm still trying to quantify their worthiness in terms of overall experience. For example, will a 500% more expensive bike provide an increase of at least 50% experience, be it speed, comfort, fun or a combination? Or will it be more like 5% or less?

I know the most important component of the bike is the engine so as long I have kg to loose around the waist, spending money on lighter and potentially more fragile wheels makes little sense especially in a non-competing enviroment. Unless of course there is somethig wrong or potentially dangerous with stock wheels, hence my previous question.

My first road bike some 15 years ago was an old second hand steel frame with basic gear shifters mounted on the bottom frame tube, no clicking mechanism and pretty basic brakes. I managed to master that pretty well and it didn't stop me from having lots of fun.

 

[HLaB]

Carrera's might be one to consider the bike gets good reviews but it can be a bit hit and miss (mainly miss) at Hellfrauds.

 

[Widge]

That's a bit harsh isn't it? I don't think anyone is arguing that a Triban 3 is great value but the frame isn't as good as a CAAD8/Synapse/Defy/Allez. I've gone from a Triban to a CAAD8 and the difference is like night and day. It's not brand snobbery, it's a better bike.

Time you add on better wheels onto a Triban, there's not a huge difference in price. There's a little bit of kidology going on here.


Tony.

Thanks, Tony.

I'm not too clear about how my opinions can be construed as 'harsh'...but then, I'm not so sensitive to these things. It's just my opinion. YMMV. I'm not trying to be clever or 'harsh'.
Nor do I claim that CAADS and Defy's are not superior to the T3.....but their entry models ARE are a little more expensive?
I only observe that 'name' brands tend to have a price. Nor am I a T3 fanboy at any cost!! (the notion of 'brand-snobbery' was the OP's own-not necessarily mine.)

One could always upgrade the wheels on their Triban...AND get to keep them when you get a better bike? Win-win!!

(Just Kidding......)

w

 

[outlash]

Widge, Cyclist33, my apologies. The impression I got was that there was a bit of self-defensive attacking and if anything bit of inverted brand snobbery .

IMO, you get better components (not groupset obviously!) on the level entry Defy's (defies?), CAAD's and the rest, plus a better frame and that's where the money goes. It's well known that the wheels aren't great on the T3 and I didn't think much of the crankset either in truth, but for £300 you can't complain. I didn't .

But the flip side is where does the law of diminishing returns apply? How much do you spend before all you're really buying is branding and not-really-noticeable differences? That's where an argument can really start!


Tony.

 

[Widge]

Yup.........If I'd known then what I know now......I would have bought a 'better' bike with better wheels, crankset, and gruppo straight away.
But......
Like many considering their first foray into road-biking one has to consider 'hey...what if I don't get on with it?' THIS is where the T3 scores. It was cheap to buy......rode pretty much out of the box, and is worthy of a couple of hundred pounds worth of upgrades should the fancy take you (my opinion only). If you take to it, you end up with a half decent £500 bike. If you really DO take to it-then your next one can be that £1000 + 'big brand bike that you have lusted after in all the mags. Having assessed and tweaked yer cheap ol T3 you are in a good position to know what you REALLY want out of a humdinging road-bike.

But,

as you so rightly point out,

Beware the law of diminishing returns.

w

 

[MJC]

Does anyone have any knowledge / experience of the Fuji Sportif 1.5 Compact?

Is it worth a closer look?

 

[vickster]

Is it sold by Evans? Look at the reviews there. Also, bike radar and google should throw up some reviews. If it is Evans, it'll be very easy to get a test ride which really is the best way to decide if its the bike for you