Olympianrider

Hello Bike Forums,


I’m looking to buy my first carbon-fiber frame, and I am wondering what the prevailing opinions are about the frames sold by Planet X bikes. Any other advice about my particular application would be much appreciated as well.


I’ve been riding old-style steel-frame bikes since the days when there was nothing “vintage” about them. I rode like a madman as a teen-ager in the ‘70s, down every road within 35 miles of my home. I sorta lost interest in college, about the time I got my driver’s license, but in the last five years I’ve taken up bike-riding again, and it’s reminded me how much I’ve always loved it. I’ve been astounded at the difference bike-riding has made in my physical condition. I’m never giving it up again.


The thing is, I’m sort of in a time warp when it comes to equipment. All those advances in bike technology over the last 30 years – until now I’ve told myself “who cares?” My main interest has been long touring rides of 40-70 miles, sometimes over 100. Steel touring frames with long wheelbases and raked forks have suited me just fine. This summer I built up what I would have considered the perfect bike when I was a teen-ager, a vintage 531 frame finished with vintage Nuovo Record parts – not a bit of plastic or carbon fiber anywhere.


But my eyes were opened this summer when I participated in my first organized race ever, the 205-mile Seattle to Portland race. Of the 3,000 or so who crossed the finish line on the first day, I saw only three others on old-school steel bikes like mine. I just couldn’t keep up. All those riders on carbon-fiber passed me going 1-3 mph faster. Some said, “wow, what a cool bike” before they pedaled on – that was a consolation. I was the last guy to cross the finish line that night.


I don’t think it was me. I don’t think they were pedaling any harder than I was. I think I just got a demonstration of the cumulative advances in bike technology of the last 30 years. Lighter weight, better gearing, indexed shifting, those fancy foot-pedals with special shoes – yeah, maybe they do make a difference. Before the next race, I’m thinking I need to build a bike reflecting the latest in modern technology (though I can probably do without disc brakes).


What I’d like to do is to put something together that is optimized for a daylong 200-mile ride. At that distance, comfort is as important as speed. I know many of you will probably suggest getting a finished bike. But that’s not my way. I’d rather pick exactly what I want and take it all down to the local bike shop for assembly. Besides, I’d rather stick with Campy parts, and it appears that no finished bikes in my price range use ‘em. They’re all Shimano or SRAM. I’m too much a curmudgeon for that.


Looking at frames, I’ve been impressed by what I have seen on the Planet X site – carbon-fiber frames for $400 to $700, either under the Planet X or Viner brand names. While I’ve noticed a certain distaste online for “cheap Chinese frames,” I haven’t seen any criticism of the frames sold on the Planet X site.


Does anyone have experience with these frames? Are there any red flags? Which would be best for this kind of riding?


I have another question, too. I’ve noticed that the forks on modern carbon-fiber road bikes don’t have much of a rake. I’ve always thought the “rake” is an important element in a comfortable ride – the ‘70s frames I’ve been riding all have raked forks, and I have gotten really jarring rides when I have ridden bikes with straighter forks. But the forks you get with carbon-fiber bikes are all pretty straight. Are the straighter forks you get with carbon-fiber bikes really appropriate for a 200-mile ride?


Thanks,
Erik Smith
Olympia, WA

rpenmanparker 

The forks have normal rake. They just don’t have any curve. The rake occurs at the fork crown, not in the blades.

rpenmanparker 

I don’t know about Planet-X, but Workswell makes some of the best and most reasonably priced, open mold carbon frames available from China. Look for an endurance model. That is what your riding habits suggest.

Seattle Forrest

For what it's worth, STP isn't a race. It's a recreational ride.

I seriously doubt that it was the bike, I'm sorry to say. But that's no reason not to get another bike! You can get affordable Chinese carbon rims as well.

mstateglfr 

https://www.planetx.co.uk/i/q/FRPXMA...-road-frameset
Getting something like the frame above may work. Based on your goal- long rides up to a double century in length, I would think an endurance frame geometry would be best. Taller head tube, longer chainstays(though that doesn’t apply to the linked frame), taller stack height.


Ill toss in some other things to consider-
https://www.planetx.co.uk/i/q/FRHOCO...ition-frameset Quality steel frame with matching carbon fork.
ES | SOMA Fabrications and IRD Mosaic 57 Carbon Fork for Soma ES Tange Prestige main triangle and cromo stays paired to a carbon fork
Pescadero Frame Set | SOMA Fabrications Tange Prestige main triangle and cromo stays with steel fork
Road Frames - Black Mountain Cycles Quality Heat Treated cromo frame and add a carbon fork like the Whiskey No7 fork or a Ritchey WCS or Comp.



If you build a quality steel frame bike up with a carbon fork and quality components(which it sounds is your plan), then you will have a really solid bike that should be comfortable for miles, look similar to what you like, and be 95% as light and effectively modern as a generic carbon frame.
For reference, a 64cm Black Mountain frame(probably larger and heavier than what you will ride) with a Whiskey No7 fork or Ritchey WCS fork and moderately light aluminum cockpit with an Ultegra/105 widerange drivetrain and moderately light wheelset(1650g) will come in weighing right at 20#. A smaller frame will obviously drop that weight into the teens. Lighter cockpit components and/or a lighter wheelset will drop it further.

I just say all this because a 19# bike(fully built with saddle and pedals) is probably a lot lighter than what you ride right now by 5# or so.
Getting a carbon frame wont make you suddenly keep up with others, but itll help im sure. Getting any quality updated bike with an updated drivetrain that is overall lighter will help.

Also, fork rake is built into where the fork meets the head tube on straight fork arms.

topflightpro

The Irish national track team rides Planet-X bikes.

bluescatjm

I picked up a Viner Mitus 0.6 frame from planetx and I've been very happy with it so far. If you're patient you can pick it up for about $650 when it goes on sale. As far as I know its made by one of the more well known Chinese manufacturers. Frame and fork weighed in at about 1300g for me in a 56cm

HTupolev

So, the really huge things to check off when it comes to road bicycle performance:

1-Is your fit good? Are you comfortable, and are you reasonably low given your performance level?

2-Are you wearing appropriate, aerodynamic clothing? Stuff that's mostly skin tight, or at least non-flappy in the wind?

3-Is your gearing reasonable? Of most importance on an endurance road ride, are you running out of low gears on hills? This can dramatically slow you down on a climb, and because it demands that you pedal with extremely high leg force (unless you get off and walk), it can rapidly fatigue your pedaling muscles and make you perform worse later on in the ride.
I'm especially asking because you say you're using Nuovo Record. It was entirely possible to build a road bike with decently-low granny gears back in the day, but most people just didn't, and Nuovo Record isn't the most typical or optimal platform to do it with. Nuovo Record's chain wrap isn't that great, and because it relies on tensioner cage angle to manage the distance between the jockey wheel and the cogs, a wide gearing range on the front chainrings can harm rear shifting performance.
Road bikes do usually come with a much wider gearing range than they did forty years ago.

4-Are you using fast tires? Tires that are low-quality and/or bombproof can roll tangibly slower. If you've got something like Marathons, they could easily be burning a mph or more compared with a performance-oriented tire.

5-Are you riding in groups? Drafting has a dramatic impact on performance... it's more significant the faster you go, but it's quite noticeable even if you're only doing like 17mph. If the people going faster than you were pacelining and you were riding by yourself, that would be a very considerable difference.

This can matter somewhat. A couple pounds can speed you up by a percent or so up a steep hill, for instance.

Doesn't really make any performance difference on endurance road rides.

During pedaling, modern clipless pedals aren't really much different from the old-school system of toe clips and straps. I strongly prefer the modern system because of how much quicker and easier it is to clip in and out, and it feels safer in the event of a crash, but I don't think it'll actually make for a tangible speed difference on the road.

Now, if you're currently just using platform pedals, then I definitely recommend trying out clipless. Retention can make for more confident and comfortable riding.

My experience with straight-bladed carbon forks is that they're perfectly capable of being quite comfortable.

By far the biggest factor for ride plushness on a road bike is usually tire configuration. Tires should be pumped stiff enough that you're not losing tons of energy to the tire's deforming as it rolls against the ground, but soft enough that they can work as suspension on your roads, to keep you comfortable and to prevent energy from being wasted shaking the bike+rider.

//=====================================

Don't take my post as reason to not get a new bike. I think you vastly exaggerate the performance differences arising from pure tech, but you should totally get another bicycle or four regardless.

raria

OP. If those guys passing you had flat backs and you didn't ... Wind resistance is one of your biggest enemy

HTupolev

It was the first thing I mentioned.

Maelochs

I have light bikes, I have heavy bikes.

No one is buying 1-3 mph.

If you weight 180 and the bike weighs 20 ... what's percentage overall saved if the bike weighs 17? 1.5 percent? say .25 mph.

I track my rides .... numbers don't lie much (on their own, at least.) The weight of the bike i ride just doesn't have a constant effect on speed.

I still like my light bikes. I just can't pretend that they make me faster.

As with most other posters ... I thoroughly encourage you to buy a nice, light endurance-geo frame, build it up exactly how you like it, and ride it like you know you want to. And maybe, if you spend enough thousands, you might gain almost a mile per hour .... but seriously, over a century or a double century, comfort is all that will really matter.

For $700 you can get a Workswell 093 in size 56 .... something like 800 grams for the frame, stripped of everything. For a grand you can get a titanium Lynskey with a carbon fork. Add another grand or $1500 for parts and you can have a real dream bike.

You might still be last across the line but you will be happier the whole way there.

raria

True, but a stiffer bike, cranks etc can make you faster. Those old steel bikes are plush but that's a double edged sword

HTupolev

My vintage bicycles that are so noodly that I can shift the rear derailleur by torquing hard enough don't seem to have this problem; with similar tires, their flat-ground performance is right in line with my Emonda.

Frame/crank/whatever stiffness does have some interesting consequences. But I suspect that marketing puts so much emphasis on the whole "power transfer" angle because it's something that sounds vaguely plausible, and which they can "improve" on year-over-year. If they had any evidence that increased stiffness about the bottom bracket was always better, I feel like we wouldn't have an engineer from Cannondale of all companies acknowledging that this might not be the case.

I haven't found this to be the case either. In my experience, bicycles with reasonably-configured tires are plush, while bikes with overpumped tires are harsh. If anything, I think I'd argue that my Emonda is plusher, since it seems less prone to freaking out on larger impacts. Sometimes it feels like the undamped springyness of the older frames is producing some whacky rebound or something.

Olympianrider

Maybe it's me? Maybe it's not the bike?

Oh, tell me it isn't so! Don't disillusion me like that!

Honestly, I do think the bike had at least a little to do with the fact that I was the last to cross the finish line in Portland (at 12:23 a.m.). Not that I'm saying anything against it. My current ride, based on a 45-year-old Swiss Cilo frame, all chrome, really is the most comfortable bike I've ever owned. Last summer, when I was in the STP, I'd just gotten the bike finished at my local bike shop two days before, and the stem was a wee bit too long. But now that I've gotten one of the proper length installed, I have to say there is nothing like the joy of riding a perfectly fitted bike. With mostly-vintage parts, it's like riding a piece of jewelry. I like to think of it as the acme of perfection for 1972. It's the sort of bike we all wanted when we saw "Breaking Away" and decided we needed to go racing semis on the Interstate.

But after watching everyone slowly overtake me during the STP, I do have to think technology is responsible for the generally higher speeds people are able to attain these days. Otherwise I have to accept the idea that 99.9 percent of the one-day riders are faster than I am -- and nobody wants to accept that! I may be in my 50s, but after riding 45 miles a night, four times a week, for ten weeks before the Big Ride, I have to think I was no slouch.

HTupoley points out one of the biggest factors -- the gearing. The Nuovo Record derailleur appears to permit a maximum low gear of 25 teeth. I've read on this forum that the Nuovo Record derailleur can accept 26T, but my local bike shop had a devil of a time making it work with 25T. The chain had to be shortened, and I am unable to shift into low gear when I use the larger front sprocket. So really I have a nine-speed, not a ten-speed.

Now, some of you may be familiar with the STP course, but for those of you that aren't, there are four steep inclines. The worst is just outside the city of Puyallup. About four-fifths of the riders made it all the way to the top, huffing and chuffing, at about 5 mph. But the low gear for me was completely inadequate. I had to get off and push. Same with the other three inclines (near Seward Park in Seattle, on the Westside Highway near Castle Rock and on the Longview bridge). I found myself wondering, when people were riding with this kind of setup back in the '60s and '70s, were they in such amazing physical shape that they could have made it all the way up? Were they Greek gods?

And on the flats, as everyone paced themselves to conserve energy, and I'd watch them inch past me a mile or three faster, I had to think my extra 5-7 pounds probably did make a difference. Maybe all those extra gears they had, too.

Yeah, I was riding alone, not part of a group, didn't do any drafting. But I'd already learned the difference good tires can make, and I had a decent set. When I departed Seattle they were pumped to 120 psi. And yes, I was using traditional toe clips and straps.

One point made here kind of surprises me, though. I've never used those newfangled clipless pedals, but people who have used them tell me they allow you to get power on the upstroke, using a different muscle group. I guess I'd assumed this might be something that also contributes to higher speed. Am I wrong about that?

And one other point interests me greatly. I guess I've never heard of "endurance" frames. How are they different from a standard road bike?

Keep in mind, my bike knowledge comes from an era when there really were just three types of frames -- 10-speeds, Sting-Rays and heavy old Schwinn and Huffy Goodwill specials.

Glad to hear some of you have had good experience with the Planet X frames. They're still contenders! (Yes, I've been figuring on about a $1,500 budget, plus assembly -- actually a little less than I spent for my current bike.)

As for indexed shifting -- I understand it's not something that contributes to speed, more of a "nice-to-have" -- I've been shifting-by-feel since I was 12 -- but since it's a standard feature nowadays, why not?

Oh, I should mention, I know the STP isn't technically a "race." The challenge isn't so much beating the pack, but rather finishing at all. My goal for next year is to beat my time, and come in well before midnight.

Erik Smith
Olympia, Wash.

SethAZ 

If you had tires pumped to 120psi then no, you didn't have a decent set.

Having more gears can help you stay within an optimal cadence regardless of your speed, but that's not going to give you 1-3mph average over 200 miles.

Try this: get your hands on some nice 28mm or 32mm tires, assuming your frame can fit them. Pump them up to much lower pressures, as guided by various calculators such as this one. I weigh much more than you and I'm loving my Compass 32mm tires at 85psi rear/70 psi front. Then compare them with your 120psi tires over a very long ride. I think you'll be surprised.

Clip-in pedals aren't exactly newfangled anymore. They're ubiquitous amongst serious cyclists. What your pedals are is oldfangled, and that's not a compliment.

"Endurance" geometries are typically more designed around rider comfort, and less around the needs of competitive racers. They'll typically have less handlebar drop from the saddle, for a more upright riding position. There may be other design decisions that make for a comfortable, stable ride, such as slightly longer chainstays, perhaps a slacker head tube angle, etc. They aren't different from road bikes; they are road bikes, but optimized under a different set of priorities that dedicated racing bikes are.

One more thing: get over the Campy fetish. There's little practical benefit to be found going that route, and massive practical benefits to going with today's market leaders. If nothing else, any and every bike shop will be able to fix or sell you replacement parts, probably in a timely manner. The same wouldn't be true of Campy. There's really no real functionality or other benefit that you'll get by going with the more expensive and harder to find brand, when the market leaders already solve every problem very nicely indeed.

My $.02 anyway.

HTupolev

Yeah, you were badly overgeared. If you were forced to walk in those four places, then there were a lot of other places where you were forced to hammer unreasonably hard and/or deliver unreasonable torque on the pedals... not good for an endurance ride. And walking is super slow.

A lot of people decided that hills are hard.

Some people were indeed Greek gods, in that they trained their pedaling torque super high.

A few of the non-Greek-gods just geared their bikes differently.

There's a 13-pound difference between my lightest and heaviest road bikes. They all perform about the same on the flats.

What model and size of tire, and what's your bike+rider weight? 120PSI is quite high.

If you're using toe clips and straps, you're already able to get power on the upstroke. That's not something that was enabled by modern clipless pedals, it's something that's been possible since foot retention was invented in the 19th century.

As far as contributing to higher speed, it's complicated. Your downstroke muscles are very good at pedaling a bike efficiently, and even professional road cyclists don't tend to have a significant upstroke most of the time. But most people have some upstroke in a sprint, and upstroke can allow you to take some load off the downstroke muscles when needed.

raria

Just wanted to go back to your original point.

The Planet X frames look great. Only $69 to send to the US (which is less than the VAT taken off the price!)

What's even more impressive is that several of the light weight CF framesets do NOT have internal cabling. Thank God! For those of us living in dry areas the need for internal cables isn't worth the install and maintenance effort.

This one has me quite interested.

https://www.planetx.co.uk/i/q/FRPXPC...-road-frameset

True its not perfect, if you read the reviews lots of comments on missing bits (collars, barrels etc.)

Seattle Forrest

I used to put 120 psi in my back tire (110 in the front) when I was running 23s. It's not that much.

SethAZ 

It's that the 120psi pressure implies that he's riding 23mm in the first place, which means he's having to use high pressure to make up for a lack of sufficient air volume, and higher pressure is stiffer, harder, and harsher on real roads. I'm firmly in the "wider is better" camp, having seen the improvements at each size upwards that I've used. He'd probably see improvements in speed from going with a high quality wider tire at lower pressure, and then there's a comfort factor. Over 200 miles comfort also has to result in more speed in some ways, due to lower fatigue and whatnot.

tomazo

I own planet x pro carbon frameset since june, so far I am very satisfied. 3000km and zero problems. From what I heard these frames are made by hong fu, but i dont know if thats true. Overall it is a really nice frame, and easy to build (BSA bottom bracket,no hidden cables etc.) I don't think that there are many better deals if you want to buy carbon frameset, especially now when they are on sale.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask, cheers

superdex

around $300? almost can't afford to NOT order one!

joejack951

There are significant differences in how shifts are accomplished between Shimano, SRAM, and Campagnolo. The hoods are also quite differently shaped. If you prefer one to the other I see no reason why not to open up the choice to all three. None of the options will have readily available replacements parts unless one walks into a dedicated, fairly-high end bike shop and those are getting fewer by the day. And the price difference...meh. We wouldn't be riding bikes with integrated shifters if we were truly pinching pennies.

Campagnolo, for me, has a couple distinct advantages, too:

1. total separation between shift levers - great when wearing winter gloves
2. multiple upshifts/downshifts - a must for me when using a compact crankset with large chainring tooth differences

And Campagnolo just looks so much better.

SethAZ 

I didn't say that there aren't differences. I said that there's little practical benefit in going with them if you factor in the tradeoffs that do exist. Everywhere you look there's support for Shimano, and for most things there's SRAM support, and then there's Campy, the eternal "one-off", the exception, the one you don't know if something is compatible or not, or whether the bike shop will have parts for it or not, etc. The OP indicated he's going Campy just because. Because why? Not because he's tried Campy shifters in their modern format and prefers the spacing of them, or any of the things that you indicated. It's because he's a "curmudgeon." In other words, he has a Campy fetish. Well fine, we all have our own little fetishes in life I suppose, but since he's announced he wants to jump firmly from the 1970s in terms of cycling into the present, he may as well do it with a clean slate. I predict that anything he truly wants or needs he could get through Shimano, for instance, and probably be happy as a clam with it. He'll also probably pay less, have better access to a wider variety of compatible parts and choices, and an improved chance that if he ran into a problem and limped into an LBS they could actually help him out right then and there. That's not a guarantee, but look at me with a straight face and tell me that his chances would be as good of walking out of an LBS with a solution to whatever random problem he has with his bike if he's on Campy instead of Shimano, or even SRAM.

I've got nothing against folks who prefer Campy for specific reasons that they can articulate, as you have. You like what you like, and that's fine. What aspect of modern cycling gear do you suppose the OP prefers in Campy over, say, Shimano? Can he tell what benefits he expects to gain by going Campy for a fully modern setup on a carbon bike? I doubt it. In the end it's his money, though. I am 100% certain that if I laid out the money I spent on a new bike recently, the choices I made in brand, material, components, etc. I'd have critics lining up around the corner to tell me why I should have gone in other directions than I did. Just wait till I post my "aeroclyde" wheelset. Just waiting on some parts to arrive. I doubt anyone on this forum will agree that it was money well spent.

raria

I've heard they are flexy at the front end. Comments?

Also there appears to be multiple version. The version you have can you give us a pointer to the website and let us know if it puts you in a more endurance or a racy setup.

Finally, what size did you order and what are your dimensions. It look like the size 52 has a 57cm ETT.

robbyville

OP,

Sounds like you have some great options to consider. I won't regurgitate much of the already excellent advice you've been given.

I absolutely understand your not wanting to think that weight had so much of an effect, it does make some, especially rotating weights on hills. But, consider this... Weight aside, you were expending so much more energy with poor gearing, potentially a poor fit (for a ride of that type), and an incredibly harsh ride due to narrow tires (considering they're probably. Mounted told school equally narrow rims), that these factors slowed you down more than anything else. Lastly, I'd be remiss if I didn't mention that if you could have found a small burst of energy to latch onto one of the groups passing you by 1-3mph, that you could have saved yourself 30-35% energy through drafting. That alone would have probably given you the respite that you needed every now and again to get reenergized and finish faster.

As someone who picked up cycling again and lost over 40lbs and rides similarly to you, get a nice comfy endurance frame, carbon or any material of your preference). Put nice gearing on it for your area, say 11-28 and 34/50 that will allow you to comfortably spin up hills.

Good luck with your build and have fun!