Need Help Finding an Endurance Bike with Ultegra
02-03-16, 10:34 AM
#28
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico
Posts: 830
Bikes: 16 Haibike Sdruo Cross SM
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 30 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
3 Posts
Can't beat the value of the Defy bikes. Hundreds less than Trek or Cannondale Endurance bikes for same thing ( carbon, 105 ).
02-03-16, 10:41 AM
#29
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 393
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 51 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Expanding on rms13's post, for under $1700 you can have a full carbon frame, $500 1300-gram carbon wheels, and a full Ultegra group with enough left over to buy a saddle, headset, and cables and all the rest and be down the road with a 17- (or much less) lb. bike the like of which no manufacturer can match for the money.
If you get no pleasure from assembling your own bike and just want to ride, for about the same money you can get an approximately 17-lb. Nashbar carbon bike with a lifetime warranty. it doesn't have flashy designer stickers on the side, but it will ride every bit as well as the bike which cost $1000 more and does have "Trek" or "Felt" or whatever plastered on the down tube.
(https://www.nashbar.com/bikes/Produc...2_-1___204687_) Nashbar CR5 Road Bike--- Often on sale for $1500. The cranks, BB, and brakes are FSA but I see no reason to think these are much less good than Ultegra ... and if you can get in on sale for $1500 or even full-priced at 1800 it is a super deal.
I do not work for and am in no way associated with Nashbar and receive no recompense for this post. Nor am I in any way compensated by or affiliated with Workswell, where I would direct you for carbon frames and wheels and sundries.
If you get no pleasure from assembling your own bike and just want to ride, for about the same money you can get an approximately 17-lb. Nashbar carbon bike with a lifetime warranty. it doesn't have flashy designer stickers on the side, but it will ride every bit as well as the bike which cost $1000 more and does have "Trek" or "Felt" or whatever plastered on the down tube.
(https://www.nashbar.com/bikes/Produc...2_-1___204687_) Nashbar CR5 Road Bike--- Often on sale for $1500. The cranks, BB, and brakes are FSA but I see no reason to think these are much less good than Ultegra ... and if you can get in on sale for $1500 or even full-priced at 1800 it is a super deal.
I do not work for and am in no way associated with Nashbar and receive no recompense for this post. Nor am I in any way compensated by or affiliated with Workswell, where I would direct you for carbon frames and wheels and sundries.
Also, FSA brakes are pretty crap. They aren't nearly as good as Ultegra.
But looks like a sweet bike for the price I'd definitely be interested in it.
I wonder what the clearance is for tires...
Last edited by exime; 02-03-16 at 10:47 AM.
02-03-16, 10:41 AM
#30
SuperGimp
02-03-16, 11:12 AM
#32
Senior Member
02-03-16, 12:25 PM
#33
Vain, But Lacking Talent
I have ridden with a couple guys who have the 4.5 and love them. It's over the $2K budget and not full Ultegra but the ISO system seems to be the leading technology right now and I like that it's simple but effective. If the OP is willing to stretch the budget the 4.5 would be a great bike.
Also, a note regarding Ultegra vs. 105 11 speed: They are essentially the same, save for materials and weight. There is no shame in having a 105/Ultegra mix.
02-03-16, 12:48 PM
#34
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: North East Tennessee
Posts: 1,616
Bikes: Basso Luguna, Fuji Nevada
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4261 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times
in
1 Post
I certainly did not mean that I thought the Ultegra/105 mix on the 4.5 was in anyway a liability. The 4.5 is a great value but still not a cheap bike at ~$2500. I felt it important to note the mixed groupsets because the Emonda had been mentioned and it list having full groupset in it's features in everything I've seen published. That's not the case with all Treks.
02-03-16, 01:01 PM
#35
I'm doing it wrong.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,875
Bikes: Rivendell Appaloosa, Rivendell Frank Jones Sr., Trek Fuel EX9, Kona Jake the Snake CR, Niner Sir9
Mentioned: 85 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9742 Post(s)
Liked 2,812 Times
in
1,664 Posts
02-03-16, 01:45 PM
#36
Vain, But Lacking Talent
I certainly did not mean that I thought the Ultegra/105 mix on the 4.5 was in anyway a liability. The 4.5 is a great value but still not a cheap bike at ~$2500. I felt it important to note the mixed groupsets because the Emonda had been mentioned and it list having full groupset in it's features in everything I've seen published. That's not the case with all Treks.
02-03-16, 01:45 PM
#37
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Posts: 616
Bikes: Opus Vivace F1
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
Sometimes I'm grinding a bit lower than 90 but doable most of the time. I get the need for the larger cogs, just that 32-34 seems a bit extreme to me unless one is riding mountains.
02-03-16, 02:13 PM
#38
don't try this at home.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: N. KY
Posts: 5,974
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 987 Post(s)
Liked 528 Times
in
363 Posts
The 34 chainring is 13% easier for the same rear cog. (34/39=.87). That's a little more than one rear cog easier.
I'm not sure if a 11-32 works with a standard Ultegra rear derailleur. (I suspect it does work, but ask the bike store.)
You can compare ratios, and one rear shift is anywhere from about 7% to 14%, typically around 8-10% difference. (The differences between cogs change from cog to cog.)
32/34=.94 32 rear and 34 chainring
28/39=.72 28 rear and 39 chainring
.94/.72=1.30 or about 30% easier (actually about 28% without rounding). That's a lot.
But the difference between a 28 and 32 low cog is only about 13%, a little over one shift easier. So you might try the stock 28 low and see how that works for you.
02-03-16, 03:30 PM
#39
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 275
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
It's all ratios between tooth counts
The 34 chainring is 13% easier for the same rear cog. (34/39=.87). That's a little more than one rear cog easier.
I'm not sure if a 11-32 works with a standard Ultegra rear derailleur. (I suspect it does work, but ask the bike store.)
You can compare ratios, and one rear shift is anywhere from about 7% to 14%, typically around 8-10% difference. (The differences between cogs change from cog to cog.)
32/34=.94 32 rear and 34 chainring
28/39=.72 28 rear and 39 chainring
.94/.72=1.30 or about 30% easier (actually about 28% without rounding). That's a lot.
But the difference between a 28 and 32 low cog is only about 13%, a little over one shift easier. So you might try the stock 28 low and see how that works for you.
The 34 chainring is 13% easier for the same rear cog. (34/39=.87). That's a little more than one rear cog easier.
I'm not sure if a 11-32 works with a standard Ultegra rear derailleur. (I suspect it does work, but ask the bike store.)
You can compare ratios, and one rear shift is anywhere from about 7% to 14%, typically around 8-10% difference. (The differences between cogs change from cog to cog.)
32/34=.94 32 rear and 34 chainring
28/39=.72 28 rear and 39 chainring
.94/.72=1.30 or about 30% easier (actually about 28% without rounding). That's a lot.
But the difference between a 28 and 32 low cog is only about 13%, a little over one shift easier. So you might try the stock 28 low and see how that works for you.
I understand the difference between 28 and 32 isn't much...
So long as I have a 34 on the front I should be OK. I do not ride at 90 and sometimes going up a hill I will drop for less than 50
02-03-16, 07:38 PM
#40
don't try this at home.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: N. KY
Posts: 5,974
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 987 Post(s)
Liked 528 Times
in
363 Posts
For shorter, very steep climbs (18-22%), I'll be standing, going 3 mph, at 30 rpm. That's just one pedal stroke a second. Balance is critical at those slow speeds. It's kind of fun for shorter climbs, but I run out of power pretty fast. A 34-28 works good for this.
I also have a gravel bike with a triple. It's low is 30 front, 29 rear. (not too different than a 34-32.) It's good to be able to sit and spin with lighter pedal pressure at a medium cadence on a 10% to 12% grade.
And a few of the local club riders have had 32 or 34 cassettes added (usually with a replacement mountain bike derailleur). It's really helped them to keep up with the club rides when it gets hilly.
I also have a gravel bike with a triple. It's low is 30 front, 29 rear. (not too different than a 34-32.) It's good to be able to sit and spin with lighter pedal pressure at a medium cadence on a 10% to 12% grade.
And a few of the local club riders have had 32 or 34 cassettes added (usually with a replacement mountain bike derailleur). It's really helped them to keep up with the club rides when it gets hilly.
