Hello, reasonably new to cycling, 45 year old, 103.5kg, 6"2. Started cycling about 2 years ago and dropped from about 155 kg to where I am now. Currently typically riding 30 km - 50 km fairly easily at 25 km/hr in Cambridgeshire and Suffolk. Would like to progress to >50 mile events next Summer.
I have a Giant TCX SLR1 2017 which I have never particularly gelled with. So thinking of investing in a more road orientated bike. These seem very good value, particularly number 1 - it seems to be better specced than more expensive Boardman bikes sold by Cycle Republic. Am I missing anything?
1. https://www.cyclerepublic.com/boardman- ... -2019.html
2. https://www.cyclerepublic.com/boardman- ... -2019.html
3. https://www.cyclerepublic.com/boardman- ... -2019.html
My reading is that the 9.4 frame is better than the 9.2 but No 1 is £200 cheaper than No 2 and you get the Di2 thrown in. I appreciate it is non-disk, is that the issue, the manufacturer is wanting to get rid of bikes without disks?
Assuming that No 1 is a great deal, not to be passed up, is it perhpaps too 'race' given that in all liklihood I will be doing 100 km sportives twice a year and the rest of the time 30-50 km three times a week?
Secondly, there are a couple of reviews saying that the thinner tyres and rim breaks led to a bit of a 'slip' occasionally on wet roads. Again, given my lack of experience, would I better off with a non Di version and getting the disk breaks and perhaps even changing the tyres for slightly wider ones?
Thank you
C
I have a Giant TCX SLR1 2017 which I have never particularly gelled with. So thinking of investing in a more road orientated bike. These seem very good value, particularly number 1 - it seems to be better specced than more expensive Boardman bikes sold by Cycle Republic. Am I missing anything?
1. https://www.cyclerepublic.com/boardman- ... -2019.html
2. https://www.cyclerepublic.com/boardman- ... -2019.html
3. https://www.cyclerepublic.com/boardman- ... -2019.html
My reading is that the 9.4 frame is better than the 9.2 but No 1 is £200 cheaper than No 2 and you get the Di2 thrown in. I appreciate it is non-disk, is that the issue, the manufacturer is wanting to get rid of bikes without disks?
Assuming that No 1 is a great deal, not to be passed up, is it perhpaps too 'race' given that in all liklihood I will be doing 100 km sportives twice a year and the rest of the time 30-50 km three times a week?
Secondly, there are a couple of reviews saying that the thinner tyres and rim breaks led to a bit of a 'slip' occasionally on wet roads. Again, given my lack of experience, would I better off with a non Di version and getting the disk breaks and perhaps even changing the tyres for slightly wider ones?
Thank you
C