anyone done the research already? if price was not really an object, what is the best frame out there for racing on the road? it doesn't have to be the lightest or stiffest, but a great all-arounder. also willing to entertain custom builds if the lead time is not ridiculous.

if geography plays into things, 99% of the races are in the Mid-Atlantic / New England area.

I'm a sucker for nice Euro bikes.
I'd say a Colnago Extreme Power or a Pinarello Dogma FPX. This is price no object etc. Those Look 595's are nice too.

In terms of something North American. I've heard excellent things about the new Trek Madone.

One that fits.

One that fits.

not only that, but you should try to get the most expensive, lightest, snazziest one you can find/afford...that fits. that way you'll try really hard to not get involved in crashes while you're racing.

anyone done the research already? if price was not really an object, what is the best frame out there for racing on the road? it doesn't have to be the lightest or stiffest, but a great all-arounder. also willing to entertain custom builds if the lead time is not ridiculous.

if geography plays into things, 99% of the races are in the Mid-Atlantic / New England area.

I REALLY LIKE THE BMC PROMACHINE. Both from looks, the scarcity, plus the geometry fits me well. If price was of no object, I would take a trip to cadence cycles in Philly or NYC and by the frame, get it built up with the parts I want, and get fitted by their pros. It won't be a killer deal, but a 1st class experience.

If price was of somewhat importance, I would also look at the crash replacement policy of the manufacture.

not only that, but you should try to get the most expensive, lightest, snazziest one you can find/afford...that fits. that way you'll try really hard to not get involved in crashes while you're racing.
. . . that's an off the back recepie right there. :p

But seriously, the OP should consider crashes (especially if crits are involved) into the economic analysis.

The one your sponsor provides.

I would go colnago c 50.

Waterford R-33
-will fit perfect (if not its your own fault)
-can be repainted and repaired
-not too heavy
-not a long wait period
-can be painted real purty so that you'll like to look at it too
-unique

anyone done the research already? if price was not really an object, what is the best frame out there for racing on the road? it doesn't have to be the lightest or stiffest, but a great all-arounder. also willing to entertain custom builds if the lead time is not ridiculous.

if geography plays into things, 99% of the races are in the Mid-Atlantic / New England area.

Whatever you're riding now.

. . . that's an off the back recepie right there. :p

But seriously, the OP should consider crashes (especially if crits are involved) into the economic analysis.

I've heard this thing about crit crashes so often, but in my experience, the worst crashes I've been either involved in, or have seen have all happened in road races..

Specialized E5. shame they don't make it anymore; it is still their stiffest ever bike outside of the Tarmac E5. Get em before they're gone on ebay.

i would agree the E5 is a perfect road frame. can take a beating.

anyone done the research already? if price was not really an object, what is the best frame out there for racing on the road? it doesn't have to be the lightest or stiffest, but a great all-arounder. also willing to entertain custom builds if the lead time is not ridiculous.

if geography plays into things, 99% of the races are in the Mid-Atlantic / New England area.

But price should be an object unless you have really deep pockets as there is a reasonable chance your bike will get destroyed at some point.

I'd go with aluminum frame, something like a Cannondale, inexpensive and pretty near as light and stiff as anything out there.

You can spend a lot more, and not get much more at all in terms of performance.

I bought a Pegoretti 8:30 a.m. (alu) in I guess 2005 from a US dealer as they were tailing off the model, and I absolutely love that bike for racing. It draws many jealous stares. Not too dearly bought, either (although it would be difficult to replace -- with the danged dollar in the toilet).

I'm currently riding a Specialized Roubaix S-Works and really like the bike for its comfort aspect. I'm racing now and was not when I purchased the bike, which is really why I'm looking for a racier bike.

Please keep the suggestions coming.

you know, the thing is, the best race frame for you is the one that come race day you'll want to get on and ride your li'l heart out. and it's personal -- some guys purely look at bikes as tools. it you are one of those, then there are any number of really nice pieces of equipment out there, and you just have to find one where the geometry meets your needs. If you're looking for more from your bike, you sort of have to listen to your soul a little.
I had a perfectly serviceable alu Douglas frame that I used to race. It was light, it was surprisingly comfortable and stable -- what's not to like? I once lent it to a friend of mine, and she even won a road race with a solo 20 mi effort on it. but when I saw that Pegoretti and that it wasn't so dear to kill me to ding it a little, I grabbed it, and now I look forward to riding that bike in a way that I did not with the Douglas. Unhealthily? some might say. but, whatever floats your boat. the competition is stiff enough so that you're not going to go too wrong at any pricepoint against the competition at that pricepoint.
that's for me the key -- are you going to look forward to riding it? which is a very personal decision and a mixture of both style and substance.

The best race frame is a Time VXRS. Just look at Boonen, he went from winning all those races in '05 and '06 on a VXRS to requesting Specialized to build him a one off frame just so he could make it through the season. If that doesn't tell you how great Time's are, I don't know what will. :)

The best race frame is a Time VXRS. Just look at Boonen, he went from winning all those races in '05 and '06 on a VXRS to requesting Specialized to build him a one off frame just so he could make it through the season. If that doesn't tell you how great Time's are, I don't know what will. :)

Thought that was more of a geometry issue then a quality issue?

* deleted *

Time is 1 of 2 American manufacturers

I thought Time was a French company?

Time is an American manufacturer?

Since when?

I thought tey were in Nevers, France.

There are Zero american manufacturers who source their own fibers, as Giant is Taiwanese (or something), but the more important question is: Did you enjoy that issue of Bicycling?

Look is in Nevers - not sure about time.

As for best all rounder - look 595 seems to be the one that really seems to excel in everything. Some might be better sprinters, others better climbers and a few more comfortable and many more cheaper but the 595 in both the origin and ultra format seems to be praised by anyone who has ridden one as the best ... i'd say the closest rival is The colnago extreme power, of course offerings such as Time, Lappiere, Pinarello are worthy rivals but you'll have a hard time finding 5 cyclist who have ridden them and other high end bikes (for accurate comparison) so difficult to form a valid opinion on them.

Cervelo Soloist

I believe you can even flip the seatpost to get a geometry that is very close to that of a dedicated time trial bike.

For me personally, though, custom Waterford FTW.

I am baffled by anyone who thinks a steel frame could possibly be the 'best all around race frame'.

If that were the case people would be racing them. I know, 'pro's race what they are paid to race'. But if it meant a difference between winning and losing they would rebrand steel frames. Also, in no Cat's are there top riders racing steel, and these are guys who have to pay for their equipment for the most part.

It might be a fine material for a touring/randonneuring/beater/fixie but it has no place in a race any longer. Aluminum would be a better choice.

I am baffled by anyone who thinks a steel frame could possibly be the 'best all around steel frame'.


Tell me you didn't just post this sentence. :rolleyes:

Tell me you didn't just post this sentence. :rolleyes:

I smell something coming on for ol' EWITZ....
http://blog.wrench.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/whoopass.jpe

I am baffled by anyone who thinks a steel frame could possibly be the 'best all around race frame'.

If that were the case people would be racing them. I know, 'pro's race what they are paid to race'. But if it meant a difference between winning and losing they would rebrand steel frames. Also, in no Cat's are there top riders racing steel, and these are guys who have to pay for their equipment for the most part.

It might be a fine material for a touring/randonneuring/beater/fixie but it has no place in a race any longer. Aluminum would be a better choice.


why do you hate america?

I smell something coming on for ol' EWITZ....


I concur. Opening up an ignorant post with that sentence is just icing on the cake.

I am baffled by anyone who thinks a steel frame could possibly be the 'best all around race frame'.

If that were the case people would be racing them. I know, 'pro's race what they are paid to race'. But if it meant a difference between winning and losing they would rebrand steel frames. Also, in no Cat's are there top riders racing steel, and these are guys who have to pay for their equipment for the most part.

It might be a fine material for a touring/randonneuring/beater/fixie but it has no place in a race any longer. Aluminum would be a better choice.Some pros actually do ride steel in the spring classics. Contemporary air-hardened steel alloy is not your father's steel.

OP wrote, "doesn't have to be the lightest or stiffest, but a great all-arounder." Depending on the rider, custom steel could very well fit the bill perfectly. There are trade-offs involved in all materials.

I am baffled by anyone who thinks a steel frame could possibly be the 'best all around race frame'.

If that were the case people would be racing them. I know, 'pro's race what they are paid to race'. But if it meant a difference between winning and losing they would rebrand steel frames. Also, in no Cat's are there top riders racing steel, and these are guys who have to pay for their equipment for the most part.

It might be a fine material for a touring/randonneuring/beater/fixie but it has no place in a race any longer. Aluminum would be a better choice.
Please elaborate. What, exactly, makes steel a poor choice for racing?

What, exactly, makes steel a poor choice for racing?

Because Steel rust. After it rust, you could get in a crash and the bike could cut you. If you don't go get technis shot, the wound could end up killing you. Do you want that on your conscience? Huh! :wink:

Sorry, that is about the best answer I could come up with. I don't think ewitz is coming back.

I would vote for the Merlin CR Works as an ultimate racing bike.

I also would say the Cannondale CAAD 9 is probably the best value for an all around racing bike.

C-50s, etc. are amazing, but if I had one I would never want to race it...

Chris

Please elaborate. What, exactly, makes steel a poor choice for racing?
More accurately, I think you fairly could say that there isn't much to recommend steel for racing over aluminum. It rusts, it's not lighter than aluminum, it's not more easily formed, quality steel frames tend to be a little more expensive than quality aluminum frames, and the manu's are pushing for reasons for you to replace your steel frame, so a lot of R&D just goes elsewhere -- either alu or carbon fiber.
Guys race them, but when they get a new one it's almost never steel.

Because Steel rust. After it rust, you could get in a crash and the bike could cut you. If you don't go get technis shot, the wound could end up killing you. Do you want that on your conscience? Huh!
Hmm I hadn't thought of that one, I'm now much more scared of dying because of the steel frame I opted to leave unpainted and unfinished, than the plastic frame that has a crack that I can't tell if its "just cosmetic" or "structurally unsound."

More accurately, I think you fairly could say that there isn't much to recommend steel for racing over aluminum. It rusts, it's not lighter than aluminum, it's not more easily formed, quality steel frames tend to be a little more expensive than quality aluminum frames, and the manu's are pushing for reasons for you to replace your steel frame, so a lot of R&D just goes elsewhere -- either alu or carbon fiber.
Guys race them, but when they get a new one it's almost never steel.
Well I wrote a great argument, but I deleted it because Sheldon says it better, and less biased.

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/frame-materials.html

BTW: I race a carbon Kestrel, and used to commute on one.

I . . . am not sure what your point is with the Sheldon Brown thing. Nothing I said disputes a word of it, and nothing Sheldon says disputes a word of what I said.
I have a steel Pegoretti as well as an aluminum one, but I race the aluminum one because, while it's not as nice a ride, it wouldn't kill me to wreck it. I also have a chi-chi aluminum DeRosa that i don't race, and a Fondriest CF that I used to race sometimes, but the alu Peg is just so good at it that . . you know, why?

I . . . am not sure what your point is with the Sheldon Brown thing. Nothing I said disputes a word of it, and nothing Sheldon says disputes a word of what I said.
I have a steel Pegoretti as well as an aluminum one, but I race the aluminum one because, while it's not as nice a ride, it wouldn't kill me to wreck it. I also have a chi-chi aluminum DeRosa that i don't race, and a Fondriest CF that I used to race sometimes, but the alu Peg is just so good at it that . . you know, why?
My point was to show a comparison between materials to show that all have both strengths and weakness'. Sorry that I quoted you as I was still kind of responding to what ewitz said: "I am baffled by anyone who thinks a steel frame could possibly be the 'best all around race frame'."

Re-reading your post, I completely agree with you in that there aren't too many readily available options for a steel bike, and thats unfortunate.

I also would say the Cannondale CAAD 9 is probably the best value for an all around racing bike.

Chris

I like race bikes to be tools. There's elegance in the bare minimalism. CAAD 8s/9s are one of my favorites. For an older, heavier choice in steel, nothing beats a Merckx MX Leader as a great, all-round race machine!

Texbike

TCR advanced. Largest bicycle manufacturer = largest R&D budget = Largest value. Carbon frames without lugs (less weak spots), and let's be honest the pro peloton is all going to compact frame geometry b/c its lighter, stiffer, and is the best at accelerating and climbing.

I have a look 595 and a CAAD 9. I race the CAAD 9, why, because I can't afford to replace the look, the cannondale I can. Part of the "perfect" race bike is that it has to be relatively cheap. Sure the look would be nicer to race on, it fits me better (slightly), is lighter, and looks nicer, but the cannondale's are damn close and less than 1/4 the price. That is why they are so popular.

TCR advanced. Largest bicycle manufacturer = largest R&D budget = Largest value. Carbon frames without lugs (less weak spots), and let's be honest the pro peloton is all going to compact frame geometry b/c its lighter, stiffer, and is the best at accelerating and climbing.
And look like crap. I won't even go into the other parts.

Not sure about the Giants I sure hear and see lots of busted frames from Giants but admitedly that's on their medium to low end range.

Rust?! Flex is the issue. Hold a steel bike next to you and step down on the pedal, then watch the bottom bracket/bottom of the frame flex six inches further than an aluminum or carbon frame would. (ok, i made up the six inches number, but that is why steel is so "comfortable" it flexes and absorbs vibration at the cost of efficeincy)... Additionally, the longer you ride the more it flexes (same with Ti), while alum/carbon maintain their stiffness.

Rust?! Flex is the issue. Hold a steel bike next to you and step down on the pedal, then watch the bottom bracket/bottom of the frame flex six inches further than an aluminum or carbon frame would. (ok, i made up the six inches number, but that is why steel is so "comfortable" it flexes and absorbs vibration at the cost of efficeincy)... Additionally, the longer you ride the more it flexes (same with Ti), while alum/carbon maintain their stiffness.
I am not a metallurgist, but I have been well-convinced by the various metallurgists (and framebuilders) who have posted here who say that differences in frame characteristics derive far, far more from design than from inherent materials characteristics. I understand that some of the "truisms" we accept about materials characteristics are the opposite of the material's inherent characteristics. Like, aluminum as stiff. Aluminum itself isn't stiff, but because it is light, it can be formed into big tubes, which are stiff. I have a steel bike with thin-walled larger tubes that is very stiff. read that thing from Sheldon Brown posted above.

also from Sheldon Brown's site -- actual deflection, or stiffness, data. Frame materials are all over the place. http://sheldonbrown.com/rinard_frametest.html

Rust?! Flex is the issue. Hold a steel bike next to you and step down on the pedal, then watch the bottom bracket/bottom of the frame flex six inches further than an aluminum or carbon frame would. (ok, i made up the six inches number, but that is why steel is so "comfortable" it flexes and absorbs vibration at the cost of efficeincy)... Additionally, the longer you ride the more it flexes (same with Ti), while alum/carbon maintain their stiffness.

Where do you get this information? :rolleyes: