Looking for a new object of desire

[Membrane]

I'm looking for a new object of desire, my ideal road bike for "when I
win the lotto" and "when I get fit". Being the anal nitpick that I am, I
haven't been able to find one that ticks all my boxes:

Carbon (non compact) frame
White + blue frame colour
Weight ~ 8kg (- pedals)
Triple
< £1400

Any recommendations?

--
Membrane

[Clive George]

"Membrane" > wrote in message
...
> I'm looking for a new object of desire, my ideal road bike for "when I
> win the lotto" and "when I get fit". Being the anal nitpick that I am, I
> haven't been able to find one that ticks all my boxes:
>
> Carbon (non compact) frame

Isn't that one likely to be a bit tricky?

What's wrong with compact anyway?

cheers,
clive

[Membrane]

"Clive George" > wrote:

>What's wrong with compact anyway?

Technically nothing, but I find don't like the aesthetics of a backward
sloping top tube. A slight backward slope might be ok. For example I
find Giant compact frames ugly, but the angle of the top tube on a Focus
Cayo looks good to me (it might not be 100% level, I don't have a pure
side photo of that bike).

I should have added to my OP that I also don't fancy the aesthetics of
curved, tapered or stepped frame tubes.

If it were it not for the Darth Vader black colour (particularly on the
2008 model), a Focus Cayo Triple would be my dream bike. Gorgeous frame
shape IMO, it virtually matches the clean lines of an alu frame.

--
Membrane

[Rob Morley]

In article >, Membrane
says...
> If it were it not for the Darth Vader black colour (particularly on the
> 2008 model), a Focus Cayo Triple would be my dream bike. Gorgeous frame
> shape IMO, it virtually matches the clean lines of an alu frame.
>
So get one and paint it whatever colours you want.

[Pete Biggs]

Membrane wrote:
> "Clive George" > wrote:
>
>> What's wrong with compact anyway?
>
> Technically nothing, but I find don't like the aesthetics of a
> backward sloping top tube. A slight backward slope might be ok. For
> example I find Giant compact frames ugly, but the angle of the top
> tube on a Focus Cayo looks good to me (it might not be 100% level, I
> don't have a pure side photo of that bike).

With your budget you could get a decent frame and build it up yourself with
mid to high end components of your exact choice. It's a very satisfying
thing to do, and I'm sure you'd end up loving the way the bike looks,
regardless of frame-shape, because it will be /your/ bike. If the best
frames happen to have backward sloping top tubes, get one!

~PB

[Membrane]

Rob Morley > wrote:

>> If it were it not for the Darth Vader black colour (particularly on the
>> 2008 model), a Focus Cayo Triple would be my dream bike. Gorgeous frame
>> shape IMO, it virtually matches the clean lines of an alu frame.

>So get one and paint it whatever colours you want.

I assume you are being sarcastic. If you find the question trivial, your
reader should have an "Ignore thread" feature.

--
Membrane

[Membrane]

"Pete Biggs" > wrote:

>I'm sure you'd end up loving the way the bike looks,
>regardless of frame-shape, because it will be /your/ bike. If the best
>frames happen to have backward sloping top tubes, get one!

Only I know what works for me. No disrespect for your choice it just
isn't mine. Vive la différence and all that.

--
Membrane

[vernon]

"Membrane" > wrote in message
...
> Rob Morley > wrote:
>
>>> If it were it not for the Darth Vader black colour (particularly on the
>>> 2008 model), a Focus Cayo Triple would be my dream bike. Gorgeous frame
>>> shape IMO, it virtually matches the clean lines of an alu frame.
>
>>So get one and paint it whatever colours you want.
>
> I assume you are being sarcastic. If you find the question trivial, your
> reader should have an "Ignore thread" feature.
>
I assumed he was being helpful.

[Ekul Namsob]

Membrane > wrote:

> Rob Morley > wrote:
>
> >> If it were it not for the Darth Vader black colour (particularly on the
> >> 2008 model), a Focus Cayo Triple would be my dream bike. Gorgeous frame
> >> shape IMO, it virtually matches the clean lines of an alu frame.
>
> >So get one and paint it whatever colours you want.
>
> I assume you are being sarcastic. If you find the question trivial, your
> reader should have an "Ignore thread" feature.

What's wrong with the respray suggestion? If you're after an object of
desire then it only seems reasonable.

cheers,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

[Ekul Namsob]

Membrane > wrote:

> "Pete Biggs" > wrote:
>
> >I'm sure you'd end up loving the way the bike looks,
> >regardless of frame-shape, because it will be /your/ bike. If the best
> >frames happen to have backward sloping top tubes, get one!
>
> Only I know what works for me. No disrespect for your choice it just
> isn't mine. Vive la différence and all that.

You're not really encouraging people to give you advice here.

Cheers,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

[Marc]

Membrane wrote:
> (Ekul Namsob) wrote:
>
>> What's wrong with the respray suggestion?
>
> Cost, a quality two colour paint job and pattern design is very
> expensive

Your brief included a lottery win
> Voids warranty

Your brief included a lottery win

> Extra bike value depreciation

Your brief included a lottery win
> Branding will disappear
Can be reapplied if needs be, but why is it important to you?

[Membrane]

(Ekul Namsob) wrote:

>What's wrong with the respray suggestion?

Cost, a quality two colour paint job and pattern design is very
expensive
Voids warranty
Extra bike value depreciation
Branding will disappear

--
Membrane

[Membrane]

(Ekul Namsob) wrote:

>> >I'm sure you'd end up loving the way the bike looks,
>> >regardless of frame-shape, because it will be /your/ bike. If the best
>> >frames happen to have backward sloping top tubes, get one!
>>
>> Only I know what works for me. No disrespect for your choice it just
>> isn't mine. Vive la différence and all that.
>
>You're not really encouraging people to give you advice here.

I didn't ask for advice on what I should like. I stipulated what I like,
to then say that I shouldn't like what I like, and say that I should
like what someone else likes is either terribly rude and/or arrogant by
considering his choice as the only one, and any other preference
therefore wrong.

--
Membrane

[Membrane]

marc > wrote:

>Your brief included a lottery win

More realistically it contained a price limit, the reference to a
lottery win was only to reinforce the message that I am not yet in a
position to buy one.

>> Branding will disappear

> Can be reapplied if needs be

At considerable extra cost when painted, stickers are unlikely to be
available from the manufacturer.

>, but why is it important to you?

The post is about /my/ dream bike, not your's or anyone else's.

--
Membrane

[Don Whybrow]

Membrane wrote:
>
> I didn't ask for advice on what I should like. I stipulated what I like,
> to then say that I shouldn't like what I like, and say that I should
> like what someone else likes is either terribly rude and/or arrogant by
> considering his choice as the only one, and any other preference
> therefore wrong.

You know what mate? As per your original request I did have a couple of
bikes in mind that I would have recommended, but if you are going to
shoot down anyone that comes up with anything that is off by so much as
1 point from your dream machine I can't be arsed to offer any help. Good
luck on your solo search.

--
Don Whybrow

Sequi Bonum Non Time

Wit levels low. Attempting to compensate.

[vernon]

"Membrane" > wrote in message
...
> marc > wrote:
>
>>Your brief included a lottery win
>
> More realistically it contained a price limit, the reference to a
> lottery win was only to reinforce the message that I am not yet in a
> position to buy one.
>
>>> Branding will disappear
>
>> Can be reapplied if needs be
>
> At considerable extra cost when painted, stickers are unlikely to be
> available from the manufacturer.
>
>>, but why is it important to you?
>
> The post is about /my/ dream bike, not your's or anyone else's.
>
So if you want the specs for /your/ dream bike why did you ask for /our/
suggestions then rubbish them?

[Simon Brooke]

in message >, Membrane
') wrote:

> I'm looking for a new object of desire, my ideal road bike for "when I
> win the lotto" and "when I get fit". Being the anal nitpick that I am, I
> haven't been able to find one that ticks all my boxes:
>
> Carbon (non compact) frame
> White + blue frame colour
> Weight ~ 8kg (- pedals)
> Triple
> < £1400
>
> Any recommendations?

http://www.bikes-dolan.uk.com/en-us/dept_114.html

Also the eighth, tenth and twelfth and thirteenth pictures here:

http://www.bikes-dolan.uk.com/en-us/dept_124.html

The Elio's out of your price bracket, but an Excalibur + Veloce groupset +
Khamsin or Aksium wheels + reasonable saddle, seatpost, stem, bars would
leave you with a fair bit of change. You could even upgrade either the
groupset or the wheels and scrape in under £1400.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

<p>Schroedinger's cat is <blink><strong>NOT</strong></blink> dead.</p>

[Simon Brooke]

in message >, Membrane
') wrote:

> (Ekul Namsob) wrote:
>
>>What's wrong with the respray suggestion?
>
> Cost, a quality two colour paint job and pattern design is very
> expensive

Not if it's done by the manufacturer.

> Voids warranty

Not if it's done by the manufacturer.

> Extra bike value depreciation

Not if it's done by the manufacturer.

> Branding will disappear

Not if it's done by the manufacturer.

Good bike builders will spray for you, and it needn't cost much.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; ... exposing the violence incoherent in the system...

[Membrane]

"vernon" > wrote:

>So if you want the specs for /your/ dream bike

I didn't /want/ specs, I /specified/ them. The question asked was if
anyone knew of a make & model that matched the specs.

--
Membrane

[Ekul Namsob]

Don Whybrow > wrote:

> Membrane wrote:
> >
> > I didn't ask for advice on what I should like. I stipulated what I like,
> > to then say that I shouldn't like what I like, and say that I should
> > like what someone else likes is either terribly rude and/or arrogant by
> > considering his choice as the only one, and any other preference
> > therefore wrong.
>
> You know what mate? As per your original request I did have a couple of
> bikes in mind that I would have recommended, but if you are going to
> shoot down anyone that comes up with anything that is off by so much as
> 1 point from your dream machine I can't be arsed to offer any help. Good
> luck on your solo search.

What he said.

Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

[vernon]

"Membrane" > wrote in message
...
> "vernon" > wrote:
>
>>So if you want the specs for /your/ dream bike
>
> I didn't /want/ specs, I /specified/ them. The question asked was if
> anyone knew of a make & model that matched the specs.
>
Can't be bothered suggesting my solutions. Look for yourself......

[Pete Biggs]

Membrane wrote:
> "Pete Biggs" >
> wrote:
>
>> I'm sure you'd end up loving the way the bike looks,
>> regardless of frame-shape, because it will be /your/ bike. If the
>> best frames happen to have backward sloping top tubes, get one!
>
> Only I know what works for me. No disrespect for your choice it just
> isn't mine. Vive la différence and all that.

Have you owned a bike with a backwards sloping top tube?* Until you have,
you don't know what you might grow to like.

By the way, you need to cheer up a bit. My post was only meant as bit of
friendly encouragement (to get a good bike, not just a good-looking bike).
Not exactly heavy criticism.

* I have. I previously hated the aesthetics of sloping top tubes. Now I
don't.

~PB

[Membrane]

Membrane > wrote:

>>> >I'm sure you'd end up loving the way the bike looks,
>>> >regardless of frame-shape, because it will be /your/ bike. If the best
>>> >frames happen to have backward sloping top tubes, get one!
>>>
>>> Only I know what works for me. No disrespect for your choice it just
>>> isn't mine. Vive la différence and all that.
>>
>>You're not really encouraging people to give you advice here.
>
>I didn't ask for advice on what I should like. I stipulated what I like,
>to then say that I shouldn't like what I like, and say that I should
>like what someone else likes is either terribly rude and/or arrogant by
>considering his choice as the only one, and any other preference
>therefore wrong.

I apologise for that last sentence. It reads as if I'm lashing out at
Pete Biggs. I believe that his advice was well meant and intended to be
helpful.

I didn't understand why Pete recommended going for "the best frame" when
I thought that by virtue of its absence of in my spec list it was clear
that a factor such as the performance differences between carbon frames
weren't a concern for me. I now realise that it was reasonable to think
that I may not have considered it. I believe that I followed up to
Pete's message in a respectful manner, although I should have mentioned
to him that I had considered performance differences and did not find it
relevant enough to affect my choice.

Initially after reading Pete's (and other people's) reply, I thought
"Why are they arguing with my stated choice/preference?", whilst in that
frame of mind, Luke's follow up caused me to lash out.

--
Membrane

[Membrane]

Simon Brooke > wrote:

>>>What's wrong with the respray suggestion?
>>
>> Cost, a quality two colour paint job and pattern design is very
>> expensive
>
>Not if it's done by the manufacturer.

The suggestion was specific to a Focus Cayo. Focus are a bulk
manufacturer and the Cayo is a mass produced low or mid range machine.
I'm not aware of Focus doing custom builds, I'd be very surprised if a
custom paint job was an option, particularly on a Cayo. If it is, the
cost could well be less than done by a 3rd party, but IMO still high
enough to breach my specified price limit (the stock Cayo costs £999)

--
Membrane

[Membrane]

Simon Brooke > wrote:

>http://www.bikes-dolan.uk.com/en-us/dept_114.html

Nicely shaped frame, but too expensive for me and the stock colour and
pattern aren't for me.

>Also the eighth, tenth and twelfth and thirteenth pictures here:
>
>http://www.bikes-dolan.uk.com/en-us/dept_124.html

Ooh, I like the colour and pattern on pic9.

>The Elio's out of your price bracket, but an Excalibur + Veloce groupset +

IIRC Campag don't do any triples, but perhaps Shimano is an option.

>Khamsin or Aksium wheels + reasonable saddle, seatpost, stem, bars would
>leave you with a fair bit of change. You could even upgrade either the
>groupset or the wheels and scrape in under £1400.

The £825 blue stock version of the Excalibur doesn't do it for me, too
much black and not enough white for my taste, so I'd have to add the
price of a custom paint job. I dare not ask the extra cost of a custom
paint job like the one on pic9, it looks expensive. Add decent
components and I presume it would end up well in excess of £1400.

I'm not sure of the downtube on the Excalibur, the picture isn't large
enough for me to say for sure, but it appears to have a bulge in the
middle. Other than that, it is a nice looking frame.

--
Membrane

[Ben C]

On 2007-10-06, Membrane > wrote:
> I'm looking for a new object of desire, my ideal road bike for "when I
> win the lotto" and "when I get fit". Being the anal nitpick that I am, I
> haven't been able to find one that ticks all my boxes:
>
> Carbon (non compact) frame
> White + blue frame colour
> Weight ~ 8kg (- pedals)
> Triple
>< £1400

Sounds like you want a Lance Armstrong US Postal Trek from a few years
ago. They were carbon, and non-compact (Lance refused to be seen on a
"ladies' bike") and white and blue since those are the colours of US
Postal.

I don't mean Lance's actual one-- they used to sell them in the shops.

You can probably get a second hand one for < 1400. You could put a
Triple on it yourself. Lance wasn't much of a one to use the granny cog.

[Ben C]

On 2007-10-06, Membrane > wrote:
> I'm looking for a new object of desire, my ideal road bike for "when I
> win the lotto" and "when I get fit". Being the anal nitpick that I am, I
> haven't been able to find one that ticks all my boxes:
>
> Carbon (non compact) frame
> White + blue frame colour
> Weight ~ 8kg (- pedals)
> Triple
>< £1400
>
> Any recommendations?

Here's one:

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/2006-Trek-Madone-5-2-Road-Bike-Excellent-Condition_W0QQitemZ180165110329QQihZ008QQcategoryZ 33503QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Actually Discovery Channel, not US Postal, but still blue and white.

[Marc]

Membrane wrote:
> marc > wrote:
>
>> Your brief included a lottery win
>
> More realistically it contained a price limit, the reference to a
> lottery win was only to reinforce the message that I am not yet in a
> position to buy one.
>
>>> Branding will disappear
>
>> Can be reapplied if needs be
>
> At considerable extra cost when painted, stickers are unlikely to be
> available from the manufacturer.
>
>> , but why is it important to you?
>
> The post is about /my/ dream bike, not your's or anyone else's.
>

Remember the poster that said you were being negative? I gave you the
benefit of the doubt, I Know realise that you are lokking for an
parent/child affirmation interchange. Go find it somewhere else.

[Pete Biggs]

Membrane wrote:
.......
> I didn't understand why Pete recommended going for "the best frame"
> when I thought that by virtue of its absence of in my spec list it
> was clear that a factor such as the performance differences between
> carbon frames weren't a concern for me. I now realise that it was
> reasonable to think that I may not have considered it. I believe that
> I followed up to Pete's message in a respectful manner, although I
> should have mentioned to him that I had considered performance
> differences and did not find it relevant enough to affect my choice.
>
> Initially after reading Pete's (and other people's) reply, I thought
> "Why are they arguing with my stated choice/preference?", whilst in
> that frame of mind, Luke's follow up caused me to lash out.

I argued because I like to try and persuade people that performance is more
important than aesthetics, and that one's idea of what frames look good can
change anyway.

I suspect performance differences are minimal between traditional and
compact shape frames (when seatpost and stem is taken into account), so I
was also thinking about what would be best value for money for the whole
bike, and that perhaps a decent-enough frame with a horizontal top tube
would cost more nowdays, meaning less would be left for the components.

~PB

[Pete Biggs]

Membrane wrote:

> IIRC Campag don't do any triples, but perhaps Shimano is an option.

Campag still do triple mechs and chainsets, though not the Ultra Torque
type. New-old-stock might still be available somewhere too - up to Record
level. All Egos are triple-compatible.

~PB

[Rob Morley]

In article >, Membrane
says...

> I assume you are being sarcastic.

Why? You said it would be great if it weren't for the colour, so I
suggested that you change the colour.

[Pete Biggs]

I scribbled:
> Campag still do triple mechs and chainsets, though not the Ultra
> Torque type. New-old-stock might still be available somewhere too -
> up to Record level. All Egos are triple-compatible.

Ergos! :-)

~PB

[Ben C]

On 2007-10-06, Pete Biggs > wrote:
> I scribbled:
>> Campag still do triple mechs and chainsets, though not the Ultra
>> Torque type. New-old-stock might still be available somewhere too -
>> up to Record level. All Egos are triple-compatible.
>
> Ergos! :-)

Indeed, my ego would certainly never permit me to have a triple.

[Clive George]

"Pete Biggs" > wrote in
message ...

> All Egos are triple-compatible.

nah - there are definitely people who wouldn't be seen dead with one...

cheers,
clive

[Membrane]

Ben C > wrote:

>Sounds like you want a Lance Armstrong US Postal Trek from a few years
>ago. They were carbon, and non-compact (Lance refused to be seen on a
>"ladies' bike") and white and blue since those are the colours of US
>Postal.

By blue and white I meant excluding the lettering. That Trek is a decent
looking bike, but the frame "tubing" uses "odd" shapes often found on
carbon frames.

>You can probably get a second hand one for < 1400. You could put a
>Triple on it yourself. Lance wasn't much of a one to use the granny cog.

I've given up looking at second hand ones. Too difficult to find one if
you are looking for something highly specific in the right size and
colour.

The price of converting a double to a triple is too high for me. Afaik
it minimally requires changing the crankset, chain, cassette, rear
derailer, front derailer and front STI shifter. Effectively you are
looking at buying a new groupset.

--
Membrane

[Membrane]

"Pete Biggs" > wrote:

>> IIRC Campag don't do any triples, but perhaps Shimano is an option.
>
>Campag still do triple mechs and chainsets, though not the Ultra Torque
>type. New-old-stock might still be available somewhere too - up to Record
>level. All Egos are triple-compatible.

A few months ago I downloaded the Campagnolo brochure in PDF format (a
horrible 30Mb+ monster), there wasn't a single triple in it IIRC.

--
Membrane

[Pete Biggs]

Membrane wrote:
> "Pete Biggs" >
> wrote:
>
>>> IIRC Campag don't do any triples, but perhaps Shimano is an option.
>>
>> Campag still do triple mechs and chainsets, though not the Ultra
>> Torque type. New-old-stock might still be available somewhere too -
>> up to Record level. All Egos are triple-compatible.
>
> A few months ago I downloaded the Campagnolo brochure in PDF format (a
> horrible 30Mb+ monster), there wasn't a single triple in it IIRC.

For 2007, Campag moved away from supplying triple versions of all their
usual groups and instead introduced three new groups of chainsets, mechs and
BBs. Champ Triple, Race Triple and Comp Triple are featured in the 2007
printed brochure and the 2008 PDF.

2006 included triple versions of Xenon to Record.

~PB

[Simon Brooke]

in message >, Membrane
') wrote:

> Ben C > wrote:
>
>>Sounds like you want a Lance Armstrong US Postal Trek from a few years
>>ago. They were carbon, and non-compact (Lance refused to be seen on a
>>"ladies' bike") and white and blue since those are the colours of US
>>Postal.
>
> By blue and white I meant excluding the lettering. That Trek is a decent
> looking bike, but the frame "tubing" uses "odd" shapes often found on
> carbon frames.

Nature of carbon frames. If you don't want them, you don't want carbon. A
lot of the reason carbon frames, weight for weight, can be once stiffer
(where it matters) and more resilient (where it matters) is because the
structural members are shaped to achieve that end. And, indeed, the same
is happening with aluminium tubes these days with hydroforming. The down
tube of my new aluminium cross bike is gracefully whalebacked along its
length, and then crossly distended as it goes into the bottom bracket,
presumably to achieve more stiffness in that area.

If you want a frame that looks like a traditional steel frame, get a
traditional steel frame. Paul Hewitt (among others) will make one custom
fitted to you, painted in your chosen colours, at a price which will build
a complete bike well inside your budget. It will be at most 500 grammes
heavier than a carbon frame, and with reasonable care will last longer.

> The price of converting a double to a triple is too high for me. Afaik
> it minimally requires changing the crankset, chain, cassette, rear
> derailer, front derailer and front STI shifter. Effectively you are
> looking at buying a new groupset.

No. Crankset, bottom bracket, left shifter. Everything else is the same.

But a brand new bike is nicer.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; in faecibus sapiens rheum propagabit

[Simon Brooke]

in message >, Clive George
') wrote:

> "Pete Biggs" > wrote in
> message ...
>
>> All Egos are triple-compatible.
>
> nah - there are definitely people who wouldn't be seen dead with one...

I plead the fifth.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; no eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn.
;; Jim Morrison

[Ben C]

On 2007-10-07, Membrane > wrote:
> Ben C > wrote:
>
>>Sounds like you want a Lance Armstrong US Postal Trek from a few years
>>ago. They were carbon, and non-compact (Lance refused to be seen on a
>>"ladies' bike") and white and blue since those are the colours of US
>>Postal.
>
> By blue and white I meant excluding the lettering. That Trek is a decent
> looking bike, but the frame "tubing" uses "odd" shapes often found on
> carbon frames.

As Simon Brooke pointed out, that's basically the whole point of carbon
frames. But there are one or two manufacturers who make carbon tubes and
glue them into carbon lugs as if the whole thing were made of steel.
Colnago do and I think Look might.

Anyway I think the tubes on the older Treks _are_ pretty much round. A
friend had a US Postal one and they were round on that.

Look at the first few pictures here of the new Trek Madone:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech.php?id=/photos/2007/tech/features/trek_madone_launch07/Trek_Madone_5.2_full_side_view

Sloping top tube, for the first time, it says, and "Aggressive tube
profiles are a stark contrast from the previous generation's round
pipes."

You need to buy your dream bike (if it exists) soon because the features
you like are fast going out of fashion.

[Membrane]

Simon Brooke > wrote:

>> but the frame "tubing" uses "odd" shapes often found on
>> carbon frames.
>
>Nature of carbon frames. If you don't want them, you don't want carbon.

http://www.focusbikesuk.com/images/Cayo-Expert-md.jpg
http://www.focusbikesuk.com/images/Focus-Izalco-Extreme-Campa-md.jpg

Both carbon frames, there's nothing in those frame "tubing" shapes
specific to carbon. Note that both these bikes have received excellent
reviews. One review rated the Cayo Expert higher than the ("odd" frame
tubing shape) Specialized Tarmac Comp.

The Dolan Tuono that you linked to also appears to feature "non odd"
frame "tubing" shapes (picture on their website isn't good enough for me
to tell for sure).

>A
>lot of the reason carbon frames, weight for weight, can be once stiffer
>(where it matters) and more resilient (where it matters) is because the
>structural members are shaped to achieve that end.

That might be true for the extreme end of the performance scale, but
that is irrelevant for me since I am looking at a low-mid range carbon
bike.

>If you want a frame that looks like a traditional steel frame

I don't, I prefer the look of alu frames (oversized down tubes), the
above Focus bikes have just that. My preference for carbon is for the
alleged better ride quality (titanium is out of my price range).

>> The price of converting a double to a triple is too high for me. Afaik
>> it minimally requires changing the crankset, chain, cassette, rear
>> derailer, front derailer and front STI shifter. Effectively you are
>> looking at buying a new groupset.
>
>No. Crankset, bottom bracket, left shifter. Everything else is the same.

* You need a longer rear derailer cage to take up the greater slack in
the chain, thus you need a new rear derailer.
* You need a longer chain to deal with the longer cage.
* You need a new cassette since the chain is changed (the context is a
used bike).
* You need a new front derailer to match the curve of the new largest
chainring (Shimano doubles are 52-53/39, Shimano triples are 50/39/30),
and I assume that a double front derailer doesn't have the travel needed
for a triple.

--
Membrane

[Clive George]

"Membrane" > wrote in message
...
> "Pete Biggs" > wrote:
>
>>> IIRC Campag don't do any triples, but perhaps Shimano is an option.
>>
>>Campag still do triple mechs and chainsets, though not the Ultra Torque
>>type. New-old-stock might still be available somewhere too - up to Record
>>level. All Egos are triple-compatible.
>
> A few months ago I downloaded the Campagnolo brochure in PDF format (a
> horrible 30Mb+ monster), there wasn't a single triple in it IIRC.

A few seconds ago I went to the chainsets section of wiggle, and looked in
the campag section...

(have to say I cheated and used shimano at the front and campag at the
back - having 9 positions for the front mech means this isn't a problem with
the ergo levers I've got.)

cheers,
clive

[Pete Biggs]

Membrane wrote:
> Simon Brooke > wrote:

>>> The price of converting a double to a triple is too high for me.
>>> Afaik it minimally requires changing the crankset, chain, cassette,
>>> rear derailer, front derailer and front STI shifter. Effectively
>>> you are looking at buying a new groupset.
>>
>> No. Crankset, bottom bracket, left shifter. Everything else is the
>> same.
>
> * You need a longer rear derailer cage to take up the greater slack in
> the chain, thus you need a new rear derailer.

> * You need a longer chain to deal with the longer cage.

Not necessarily because the cage pivots to a different position. You may
even be able to shorten the chain if a smaller outer chainring is used.

> * You need a new cassette since the chain is changed (the context is a
> used bike).

Not if the cassette hasn't had much wear, for example if it had only been
used with one or two (maybe more) chains that were replaced before they had
stretched too much.

> * You need a new front derailer to match the curve of the new largest
> chainring (Shimano doubles are 52-53/39, Shimano triples are
> 50/39/30),

Any front mech that works with 53t will also work fine with 50t. However,
modern triple front derailleurs have special contours inside the cage for
better shifting between inner and middle rings, so I would certainly get
one. They're not expensive though.

~PB

[Membrane]

"Pete Biggs" > wrote:

>> * You need a new cassette since the chain is changed (the context is a
>> used bike).
>
>Not if the cassette hasn't had much wear, for example if it had only been
>used with one or two (maybe more) chains that were replaced before they had
>stretched too much.

I would need a new cassette regardless for the lower gearing that I'm
after, standard doubles come with a 11/12-25 cassette, I need a
12/13-28.

All in all too much trouble and expense for me, I prefer to limit my
choice to a bike that has a triple fitted.

--
Membrane

[Ekul Namsob]

Clive George > wrote:

> "Pete Biggs" > wrote in
> message ...
>
> > All Egos are triple-compatible.
>
> nah - there are definitely people who wouldn't be seen dead with one...

I wouldn't be seen dead without one. I hate having to get off and walk.

Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>