Motobecane Gran Premio Pro or Trek Emonda ALR??
10-11-19, 03:15 PM
#1
Member
Thread Starter
Motobecane Gran Premio Pro or Trek Emonda ALR??
I currently ride a 2016 Trek Emonda ALR 5, and I seriously wish it was more comfortable when I ride it. It is a fast and light bike in my opinion, and I have completed a century on that bike before, but It is super stiff and harsh when I ride over cracks and bumps on the road. I am fine with the current groupset and tire clearance on it, which are Shimano 105 and 25c tires.
[img]blob:https://www.bikeforums.net/8b7e3627-c4b5-471f-84e8-66ffd1ff864b[/img]
I have lately been considering the Motobecane Gran Premio Pro, made out of Reynolds 853 as an alternative to my Trek road bike, because I believe it will be more forgiving and comfortable when I ride it. Besides, Shimano Ultegra components plus a Reynolds 853 frame/carbon fork sound like a decent mixture in a bicycle.
[img]blob:https://www.bikeforums.net/ca7c8520-565a-4c62-88e8-1de2f0d109a5[/img]
Would the Motobecane Gran Premio Pro be a good replacement for my Trek Emonda ALR, in regards to geometry and comfort? At this point, what I want to be able to achieve on my bicycle is to comfortably go on long rides and centuries, without feeling the pain of an aluminum frame. I would really appreciate any input and suggestions!
[img]blob:https://www.bikeforums.net/8b7e3627-c4b5-471f-84e8-66ffd1ff864b[/img]
I have lately been considering the Motobecane Gran Premio Pro, made out of Reynolds 853 as an alternative to my Trek road bike, because I believe it will be more forgiving and comfortable when I ride it. Besides, Shimano Ultegra components plus a Reynolds 853 frame/carbon fork sound like a decent mixture in a bicycle.
[img]blob:https://www.bikeforums.net/ca7c8520-565a-4c62-88e8-1de2f0d109a5[/img]
Would the Motobecane Gran Premio Pro be a good replacement for my Trek Emonda ALR, in regards to geometry and comfort? At this point, what I want to be able to achieve on my bicycle is to comfortably go on long rides and centuries, without feeling the pain of an aluminum frame. I would really appreciate any input and suggestions!
10-11-19, 03:27 PM
#2
Senior Member
What's your weight and what pressure are you pumping the tires to? What particular tires are you using? Tubed or tubeless?
Also check your clearances: I have a 2016 Emonda ALR 5 as well, currently using 25mm tires, but it could easily fit somewhat bigger.
Also check your clearances: I have a 2016 Emonda ALR 5 as well, currently using 25mm tires, but it could easily fit somewhat bigger.
10-11-19, 03:42 PM
#3
Senior Member
comfort comes mostly from tire pressure, frame material matters very little, plus your ALR already comes with carbon fork. there are 2 main ways to lower tire pressure, you can either go wider or go tubeless. You will be disappointed with your new steel frame and the same 25mm tire
10-11-19, 04:20 PM
#4
Member
Thread Starter
184 and tire pressure is usually 100-105 psi. I run tubes in my tires, and it does look like the bike may fit 28mm tires. While I understand how tire pressure may affect comfort, the frame rattles like crazy on rough roads. I’ve also thought about getting a carbon seatpost to improve comfort
10-11-19, 04:23 PM
#5
Member
Thread Starter
comfort comes mostly from tire pressure, frame material matters very little, plus your ALR already comes with carbon fork. there are 2 main ways to lower tire pressure, you can either go wider or go tubeless. You will be disappointed with your new steel frame and the same 25mm tire
10-11-19, 05:00 PM
#6
Senior Member
184 and tire pressure is usually 100-105 psi. I run tubes in my tires, and it does look like the bike may fit 28mm tires. While I understand how tire pressure may affect comfort, the frame rattles like crazy on rough roads. I’ve also thought about getting a carbon seatpost to improve comfort
10-11-19, 08:13 PM
#7
Mother Nature's Son
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Sussex County, Delaware
Posts: 3,107
Bikes: 2014 Orbea Avant MD30, 2004 Airborne Zeppelin TI, 2003 Lemond Poprad, 2001 Lemond Tourmalet, 2014? Soma Smoothie
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 852 Post(s)
Liked 1,433 Times
in
815 Posts
I will contradict what Chi_Z says. The 853 Reynolds is a wonderful frame to ride. He states, "You will be disappointed with your new steel frame and the same 25mm tire". That is only his opinion, not a fact. My opinion is the opposite. I believe you will feel a significant difference between the two bikes, even with the same tires at the same psi. I do not have a CF bike and a steel bike that are similar in geometry, but I do have a CF Orbea Avant and a Lemond Poprad 853. I find the Orbea, while it is a very nice bike, a very harsh ride, even punishing at times, despite having 32mm tires at 75 to 80 psi. It is also a noisy riding bike.The tires do help, it was worse with 25mms at 100 psi. The tires are Continental Super Sport. My Poprad is not all that much heavier, has a more aggressive geometry, 853 steel fork, and 28mm tires at 90 to 95 psi. It has Continental Gatorskin, which are not known for being supple. It soaks up road chatter, smooths the ride and rolls quietly. This is only my experience with my bikes. If you can, test ride the Motobecane. If you cannot do that, test ride a different bike with 853 or other high grade steel frame. For that matter, test ride a different CF bike. In the end, you have to make the choice. Actual ride experience will help you make the decision that is best for you.
10-12-19, 07:31 AM
#8
Senior Member
You say you're running 25mm tires, but what kind? I have Vittorias on one bike that are pretty close to 25mm actual (on narrower rims), and Continentals that say they're 25mm but measure closer to 28mm on the bike (on fat rims).
If you're measuring closer to 25mm, then 100psi isn't far off. I'm about 185lbs if I stay off the donuts and burgers, and I run about 95-100psi on my Vittorias. On the Continentals, I drop it down to about 85-90psi.
As for frame, I've never ridden an Emonda ALR, but I can tell you that my Bianchi on Reynolds 631 and skinnier Vittorias is a bit more comfortable (though much less stiff) than my titanium Lynskey on fatter Contis.
If you're measuring closer to 25mm, then 100psi isn't far off. I'm about 185lbs if I stay off the donuts and burgers, and I run about 95-100psi on my Vittorias. On the Continentals, I drop it down to about 85-90psi.
As for frame, I've never ridden an Emonda ALR, but I can tell you that my Bianchi on Reynolds 631 and skinnier Vittorias is a bit more comfortable (though much less stiff) than my titanium Lynskey on fatter Contis.
10-12-19, 09:37 AM
#9
Senior Member
Tires will make the biggest difference in comfort. I’d try a 28mm tire first, and/or a set of wider rims. I don’t think you “need” to replace your bike, although I fully support your efforts to get a new one.
10-14-19, 06:45 PM
#10
Member
Thread Starter
Thank you all for all the input. I will try to find a good pair of 28mm tires and give that a shot. Maybe I can keep my bike and enjoy it more. Thanks again!
10-15-19, 01:08 AM
#11
Me duelen las nalgas
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Texas
Posts: 13,513
Bikes: Centurion Ironman, Trek 5900, Univega Via Carisma, Globe Carmel
Mentioned: 199 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4559 Post(s)
Liked 2,802 Times
in
1,800 Posts
Yeah, I'm considering that new Motobecane Gran Premio Pro with Ultegra group because it seems to be a bargain in a steel frame with excellent components. But I'm a longtime fan of steel anyway. I just want to see a few reviews from owners who are also familiar with good classic steel frames.
If you're reluctant to spend $1,000-$2,000 for a newer steel bike, check craigslist and other used ads for a good used steel road bike. In my area you can usually snag a good mid-level 1980s steel road bike for around $200. Even if it needs a little work it can be made completely roadworthy for another $100. Pretty cheap way to try a chromoly steel bike.
Good cromo steel frames can be more compliant and comfortable over distance. I usually prefer my '89 Centurion Ironman for longer rides over rough rural chipseal, and my '93 Trek 5900 (carbon fiber) for shorter club rides.
Tires can help some but there are lots of little things that go into making a bike suit our preferences for comfort and efficiency, especially for longer rides. Handlebar and wrap, stem, saddle, placement of brifters (or brakes, if using downtube or bar-end shifters), etc. It's hard to say whether a steel frame will be significantly more comfortable. We'd need to equip the steel and alloy bikes identically.
My Ironman is more comfortable over distance. No surprise, it was designed to be ridden full centuries for the 1980s style triathlons, even before clip-on aero bars were a thing. And many triathletes were only marginally interested in cycling -- most came from running and/or swimming, so the bike rides were just something they did between the two "hard" events.
The curved steel fork is flexy, as is the bottom bracket -- I can watch the bottom bracket flex side to side especially when it's on the trainer and I'm standing to pedal. Touring and old school mountain bike frames with more curved forks can feel very springy. It's just a little heavier at around 25 lbs. It's a little less efficient when I stand to stomp up short, steep sprint/climbs, compared with a stiffer frame.
The Trek is quicker on climbs -- lighter, less flex (although it's not as rigid as current carbon frames). It's a little unusual because the earliest Trek 5900 also had curved forks, so it may be a bit more compliant than the later straight forks. Some folks say the 5900 and similar Trek frames felt a little "dead" but to me it just feels like my steel bike -- only 5 lbs lighter. Which is exactly what the guy I bought it from told me. He was right. Later carbon bikes like the late model Tarmac I tried last year feel very different from the early carbon fiber bikes -- stiffer, more efficient power transfer, etc.
The one exception was a full century I rode a couple of weekends ago on the Trek, but it was split up into a 40 mile fairly fast club ride, followed by a 2 hour rest break during which I decided I felt like riding some more, and another 60 miles at a fairly leisurely 15 mph pace with two or three short breaks to stretch and snap photos. It was more comfortable than I'd expected but I've modified that Trek to be comfortable rather than efficient.
Due to an old neck injury I felt too stretched out with the Trek 5900 technically fit to my proportions, especially after switching from old school aero brake hoods (the 1993 Trek 5900 originally used downtube shifters) to brifters. I switched from a 140 to 90mm stem, and to FSA Omega Compact drops with shorter reach. Technically it's too short -- in the drops I can see the front hub over the top of the bar. And a wee bit twitchy so it demands careful attention on rippled pavement, especially on fast curves. And I've double wrapped the bar with thick foam underlayer and Arundel Synth Gecko on top -- a thick, heavy, soft and grippy wrap. Makes the FSA Omega Compact bar look like a baseball bat.
So my two road bikes are set up too differently to compare precisely. But for awhile both were set up very similarly -- same classic crit style drop bars, stem length and height, downtube shifters, old school aero brakes/hoods, saddles, etc. They still felt pretty similar and my times and speeds were pretty comparable. The lighter Trek was a little quicker on climbs.
If you're reluctant to spend $1,000-$2,000 for a newer steel bike, check craigslist and other used ads for a good used steel road bike. In my area you can usually snag a good mid-level 1980s steel road bike for around $200. Even if it needs a little work it can be made completely roadworthy for another $100. Pretty cheap way to try a chromoly steel bike.
Good cromo steel frames can be more compliant and comfortable over distance. I usually prefer my '89 Centurion Ironman for longer rides over rough rural chipseal, and my '93 Trek 5900 (carbon fiber) for shorter club rides.
Tires can help some but there are lots of little things that go into making a bike suit our preferences for comfort and efficiency, especially for longer rides. Handlebar and wrap, stem, saddle, placement of brifters (or brakes, if using downtube or bar-end shifters), etc. It's hard to say whether a steel frame will be significantly more comfortable. We'd need to equip the steel and alloy bikes identically.
My Ironman is more comfortable over distance. No surprise, it was designed to be ridden full centuries for the 1980s style triathlons, even before clip-on aero bars were a thing. And many triathletes were only marginally interested in cycling -- most came from running and/or swimming, so the bike rides were just something they did between the two "hard" events.
The curved steel fork is flexy, as is the bottom bracket -- I can watch the bottom bracket flex side to side especially when it's on the trainer and I'm standing to pedal. Touring and old school mountain bike frames with more curved forks can feel very springy. It's just a little heavier at around 25 lbs. It's a little less efficient when I stand to stomp up short, steep sprint/climbs, compared with a stiffer frame.
The Trek is quicker on climbs -- lighter, less flex (although it's not as rigid as current carbon frames). It's a little unusual because the earliest Trek 5900 also had curved forks, so it may be a bit more compliant than the later straight forks. Some folks say the 5900 and similar Trek frames felt a little "dead" but to me it just feels like my steel bike -- only 5 lbs lighter. Which is exactly what the guy I bought it from told me. He was right. Later carbon bikes like the late model Tarmac I tried last year feel very different from the early carbon fiber bikes -- stiffer, more efficient power transfer, etc.
The one exception was a full century I rode a couple of weekends ago on the Trek, but it was split up into a 40 mile fairly fast club ride, followed by a 2 hour rest break during which I decided I felt like riding some more, and another 60 miles at a fairly leisurely 15 mph pace with two or three short breaks to stretch and snap photos. It was more comfortable than I'd expected but I've modified that Trek to be comfortable rather than efficient.
Due to an old neck injury I felt too stretched out with the Trek 5900 technically fit to my proportions, especially after switching from old school aero brake hoods (the 1993 Trek 5900 originally used downtube shifters) to brifters. I switched from a 140 to 90mm stem, and to FSA Omega Compact drops with shorter reach. Technically it's too short -- in the drops I can see the front hub over the top of the bar. And a wee bit twitchy so it demands careful attention on rippled pavement, especially on fast curves. And I've double wrapped the bar with thick foam underlayer and Arundel Synth Gecko on top -- a thick, heavy, soft and grippy wrap. Makes the FSA Omega Compact bar look like a baseball bat.
So my two road bikes are set up too differently to compare precisely. But for awhile both were set up very similarly -- same classic crit style drop bars, stem length and height, downtube shifters, old school aero brakes/hoods, saddles, etc. They still felt pretty similar and my times and speeds were pretty comparable. The lighter Trek was a little quicker on climbs.
10-15-19, 05:11 AM
#12
Advocatus Diaboli
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Wherever I am
Posts: 8,631
Bikes: Merlin Cyrene, Nashbar steel CX
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4729 Post(s)
Liked 1,531 Times
in
1,002 Posts
If going steel, I'd consider the Ribble version of their Endurance model. You'll have more comfort, and at least you know it's built so that it can take a bit wider tires. Also comes with full Shimano groupset (incl the crank). The Motobecane comes with 23mm tires, you may at least want to ascertain this isn't the widest tire it can take.
Ribble ENDURANCE 725
Ribble ENDURANCE 725
10-15-19, 06:46 AM
#13
Senior Member
As an alternative, you could get a carbon seatpost and a carbon wheelset. I have a 2019 Emonda ALR built up with a carbon wheelset, carbon seatpost, carbon stem, and carbon handlebar. I also have a specialized tarmac expert (with alloy wheels). The Emonda is significantly more comfortable and generally better at soaking up any road buzz.
As an example, you could get this wheelset: https://www.huntbikewheels.cc/collec...eep-27wide-979 for $939
two gp 5000s tubeless https://www.amazon.com/Continental-G...GCL?th=1&psc=1 for $114.88
this carbon seatpost https://www.trekbikes.com/us/en_US/e...olorCode=black for $109.99.
Going this route, you'd end up spending around $1163.99 and would have a much faster, and comfier, bike then any other option around that price point.
As an example, you could get this wheelset: https://www.huntbikewheels.cc/collec...eep-27wide-979 for $939
two gp 5000s tubeless https://www.amazon.com/Continental-G...GCL?th=1&psc=1 for $114.88
this carbon seatpost https://www.trekbikes.com/us/en_US/e...olorCode=black for $109.99.
Going this route, you'd end up spending around $1163.99 and would have a much faster, and comfier, bike then any other option around that price point.
