P4D 

In the hope of taking out some bias that might arise based on name brand, I'm asking this question without reference to frame manufacturers. I'm most definitely a Clyde, and I ride bikes in the 60-62cm range. I've got a good fit base so I know what fits. Right now I have one bike, it's all top notch steel from a top notch framebuilder, and well set up as a good all around bike I can spend all day on. It definitely isn't a climbing bike based on the gearing, but I love the way it's done with 8 speed alloy bits so I'm not going to change it.

I'm looking to have a second frame I can take on this more challenging rides with additional climbing and so am going to do 10 speed. Based on my size, I'm not sweating the bikes weight. What I am trying to sort out is which of three frame options to go with.

The first is another all steel frame frame from a top notch frame builder. The tubing is different than what I ride now, and I do know the ride will be somewhat different.

The second is a steel bike with Reynolds carbon fork and carbon seat stays. It's a more contemporary boutique builder of good repute.

The third is an all carbon frame with a Kestrel fork. The frame is made by a very well thought of CF builder, and is about 6-7 years old with little mileage and no damage.

What would you suggest? All three are roughly equal in geometry, all are well built and well regarded (meaning only that I'm not over worried about construction issues). All are roughly the same price, and all are well thought of both as all purpose and good for climbing.

I hope omitting the brands isn't too annoying. Thanks for your thoughts!

bradtx

P4D, If all of the three choices fit, then choose whichever one aesthetically pleases you the most.

You can also change the drive train on your current bike for less expense, but an extra bike is always nice.

Brad

sstorkel

I wouldn't buy a used carbon fiber frame unless I knew the owner very well. I wouldn't buy a steel frame, period; I just don't think they're worth it.

I would suggest you think twice about buying a second bike. I own five bikes, but 90-95% of my riding is done on my road bike. The others have their purpose, but spend most of their time gathering dust... Since you don't seem concerned about weight or geometry, your best option is probably to upgrade the drive-train on your current bike.

P4D 

Thanks for the thoughts, I appreciate it. There is a certain quality about how I set up the existing bike and it is pretty hard to find the bits I would want in 10 speed in alloy.

himespau 

Can you test ride them and see which one feels best to you?

Mr. Beanz

Why do you need 10 speed? 9 speed does fine, so does 8.

a 39/28 in the back of a 10 speed does exaclty the same as a 39/28 in the back of an 8 speed.

Some might say you are missing the one comfy gear on a 9 speed vs 10 speed but I've never experienced it.

sstorkel

Really? I thought this was sort of Murphy's Law of Climbing: the ideal climbing cog is always the one that your cassette is lacking

I know that on long steep climbs, it always seems like my 34-25 combo is just a bit too tough and the 34-28 is a bit too easy. A 34-26 or 34-27 combo would probably be Just Right... but my 11-28 cassette jumps from 22->25->28.

P4D 

Current bike is set up as an 8 speed with 53/39 up front and 12-25 in the back. I need something a tad bigger on the back, and I don't believe Campy Chorus will handle a bigger rear cassette in the 8 speed version. Perhaps I am wrong?

I did ride one, the all steel one, butthe others are just frames. The geo fits me on all three.

Mr. Beanz

I don't use a compact so I don't know the actual gear combos but if that were my case, the 27 seems just right, I' go with a 27 low gear. Maybe a 12/27 so that I would go straight to my 27 on the long steep climbs.

The 12 because the downhills are fast enough for me without going full out. Heck, I don't even push my 53/12 on the downhills and not many keep up anyway. I've been with riders hitting higher max speeds but can still leave 'em behind because of the fancy footwork on the switchbacks. So imo, big gears don't always mean being down the hill first.

Also, I never push the 53/12 on the flats. Riding the flats I'm doing 21-22 mph on my 39/14 so I'm sure a 50/12 would be enough for me there.

So I guess a lot of gear selection depends on ride style.

fietsbob

If you choose to go with a hand built steel frame ,
the builder will pick a bit thicker wall tube set, for your size weight..

.. let them pick for you, after a conversation, of course.

remember the spare parts prices rise substantially
as the count of 'speeds' goes up.. 8 ratios well chosen, can be a good range.

You can use the cassette on many 9~10 speed hubs..
they all have to fit in the same 130 dropout spread.

yea 50 -34 cranks, seems all the rage now..

P4D 

So, again, thanks for all the comments. I really want to just leave the existing bike as is, and look to go compact with a better set of climbing gears for the secondary frame...something I could work out and get myself in climbing shape to get up GMR, etc. No way I can go up anything like that with 39/25 as the lowest gear. Torrey Pines was pretty dang hard with that ratio.

So, no real thoughts on frame material? Steel, steel/carbon, all carbon?

socalrider

If you are going custom steel, what builders were you considering.. Many of the better regarded builders have long waiting lists. I see no issue with buying a used carbon or steel frame, even ti could be thrown in for good measure. The carbon bikes of the last 5 years are built so much better than the earlier models. You need to check any used frames for damage, dings on steel, rough spots on any frame could lead you to a conclusion that it has been crashed. I would stay away from a crashed frame of any material.

PS. Still riding Columbus steel frames from the mid / late 80's, I have 3 of them and they ride great.

P4D 

The steel frame is an older model, in wonderful condition. All three are immaculate, honestly. Of the three, the carbon frame is the oldest, and I've finally been able to date it to...1992. Its off my list, although it is Calfee made. I don't think I want to trust my butt and dollars to a 20 year old carbon frame.

Edit-I'm riding Columbus too, and the steel frame is also Columbus, but a different tube set.

socalrider

what is the tubeset, be specific in your posting? Have you consider titanium, always a bunch of Litespeeds on the market and what is your budget?

himespau 

Well, if you want to feel something different go with the steel/carbon hybrid. The riding question wasn't about the geometry but more the road buzz and that sort of thing. Since you know how steel feels, try something different if you're going to hang a modern gruppo on it anyway.

Homeyba

If the geometry is truly the same between the three and they are all from similar quality frame builders I'd just pick the one that strikes my fancy the most. There are a couple little wild cards in there though. First the carbon seat stays on the steel bike are just a gimmick. They don't really do a whole lot. Second, the ride of the carbon bike is dependent on the density of the carbon and how it is laid up. All carbon bikes are not equal. As far as gearing goes, I don't like large jumps in gearing so all my cassettes have a tight cluster. More gears are fine because the jumps are smaller between gears. That's a personal choice though.

btw, Calfee is one of the best carbon bike manufacturers period. I'd trust one of their bikes any day of the week even if it is 20years old.

bigfred 

You're already familiar with the ride of steel. If "all" you want is lower gearing than by all means stick with steel. If, you're looking for more change as part of this "climbing" bike, why not go with the carbon? You would be expanding your knowledge base. You might discover that you really like it. Or, you might not. In which case, you can go looking for another frame and move most if not all your components over and flog the aforementioned.

I've got a mid 80's vintage Columbus SP framed classic, as well as a Caad4 Cannondale. The "next" bike will most certainly be an all carbon frame.

sstorkel

Not really. Carbon frames were in their infancy back in 1992. I sold my first carbon frame, a 1994 (or was it 1992?) Trek, last year. That frame had nothing in common with the carbon fiber Cervelo RS that I ride today. I thought it was a great bike when I bought it, but compared to the Cervelo it's a nightmare: a noodley frame mated to a harsh-riding aluminum fork. Not a fun ride, especially if you're a Clyde.

Aside from that, it can be difficult to evaluate the condition of a used carbon frame. If the bike has gone through multiple owners, or even just a single unscrupulous owner, it can be difficult to get an accurate history of the bike. Carbon frames, especially early ones, are subject to crash damage and that damage isn't always apparent to the untrained eye. Given the potential consequences of a sudden frame failure, I would only buy a frame that is brand-new or one that had been purchased brand-new by someone I knew and trust.

P4D 

I tried to hold back some details on framebuilders and tubesets because I was seeking some thoughts without the inevitable influence those details give. Makers and tubeset don't matter to everyone, but they do matter so some.

Right now, I ride a Merckx MXL. I love it, its great, and I really love how I set it up. Without a compact up front, I get punished badly on hills, however, so I want a bike I can use on big climbing rides.

The steel bike is made of Columbus EL-OS. Its pretty close to the MXL tubeset, but I do like the aesthetic of the bike.

The steel/carbon mix has carbon seat stays and a Reynolds carbon fork, and is a 2006 bike.

The all carbon is a 1992 built Calfee with Kestrel fork, and I'm pretty disinclined on that one at this point.

bigfred 

Yeh, I see now, that it's a '92. Sort of changes my feelings about it as well. Unless, it's from a known single owner, etc.,etc. As I'm starting to shop for a carbon frame, I'm not sure if I do, or should, share your sentiment about used carbon. All used frames can be subject to unseen damage. Internal rusting of vintage steel is always a concern, work hardening of aluminum, etc. Understand what you're saying about failure modes though. And, that's one of the reasons I've avoided carbon until now. However, the exremely rough nature of most Kiwi chip seal is causing me to reconsider.

Highjack over.

Go with the one you "like". One of the more important things about a bike, is falling in love with it all over again, each and every time you walk out to the garage and lay eyes on it.

TrojanHorse

I'm sort of shopping for a climbing bike too... my current frame is a 60 cm '88-esque Merlin Road, back when Tom Kellogg was building them I think. It has it's drawbacks though, like an AL fork and a crank that I can't swap out for something modern - the BB is too skinny. Rides great though, but I've convinced myself I want a compact double in front so here I go shopping.

socalrider

you mentioned GMR in one of your posts so you must live in socal. I have alerts sent to my phone for any 60-61cm bikes in the area..This one popped up and might be of interest to you, pretty good price considering it has ultegra group.. If the bike has the Shimano Octalink BB, you can easily swap it out to Compact by using the Ritchey Crankset which is Octalink compatible.. It is an easy upgrade and take about 5 minutes to do.. Link to crankset, great ebay seller

https://www.ebay.com/itm/RITCHEY-WCS-...item564826acc1

https://orangecounty.craigslist.org/bik/2791841238.html

https://orangecounty.craigslist.org/bik/2763125778.html