I’m afraid that I’ve caught the “upgrade bug,” I’m expecting some disposable income soon, and I’m considering disposing of it on a carbon-frame bike. I’m a 40+ recreational rider, using the bike to keep fit. No racing. A couple of Centuries a year, mostly to stay ready for the MS 150. All of my former cycling companions have quit, so I’m busy trying to keep up with the 20-somethings in group rides. I've got a hand-lugged Reynolds 531 model made by a local Houston framebuilder (Romic) in 1990, and upgraded two years ago from 7-speed 105 downtube shifting to 9-speed Ultegra STI. I’ve convinced myself psychologically that a “fast” new bike will help me ride faster. I’m not terribly interested in punishing myself by moving to an aluminum frame, so I’m looking at carbon. The two candidates I’ve mentioned look like to be the best out there at the price I can reasonably afford. They’re about the same price. They both have local dealers. In my size, 52 cm, they have nearly identical geometries, which (for the most part, except for wheelbase) also happen to coincide with that of my current ride. I just need to know which bike represents my best long-term option…

Advantage Felt: The Trek is “mostly Ultegra” (I know the Trek web site says it’s all Ultegra, but the LBS floor models all have the Bontrager cranks), while the Felt is “mostly Dura-Ace.” The component level of the Felt seems to be higher in general. I’m sure I’d be replacing the saddle of either bike, so there’s no need to remind me how cheap the Trek’s is.

Advantage Trek: The Felt “Lifetime Warranty” looks somewhat sketchy, in that the buyer is still responsible for labor charges when the frame is repaired. Felt wouldn’t even answer my e-mail question about how the decision is made between replace and repair (and how they resolve their inherent conflict of interest).

Advantage Romic: I get to pocket the $2600 and continue to be the only one in the group riding steel.

Advantage unknown:

The Felt is sold with a compact crankset. I can ride 23-24 mph even in the small chainring on my current bike (yes, I’m comfortable keeping cadence at 104), so I only hit the big ring during serious tailwinds or in big packs. I never get to use the big ring/small cog combos. So I don’t know how important this is. I’m guessing I’d be shifting in the front more often, but is that balanced by having more usable gears? Is it a real weight savings?
The Felt has curved fork blades, like my old steel bike, but a “wishbone” seatstay arrangement. The Trek has straight-blade forks, but separate stays all the way up to the seatpost. Obviously, neither is going to behave the same as a 15-year-old steel bike, but which one will “feel” better, given my comfort level with the old bike?
Living on the Texas Gulf coast, does the steel bike actually have another decade of use in it? The cable guides are getting some surface rust, and I see some brown out of the fork and chainstay weep holes after a ride in the rain, but the insides of the seat and head tubes are smooth.


Or is there a bike I’m missing? The Specialized Tarmac has a model in the same price range, but those things sure are fugly. I don’t think my pocketbook meets the entry requirements for Cannondale’s carbon.

at a shop today. It was solid black with tone-on-tone lettering. Looks like a Synapse (which the press says is supposed to be a comfortable carbon bike) except the bike at the shop had an Ultegra drivetrain except for the compact cranks and Dura-Ace rear derailleur. Price listed on the bike was $3200.

I’m afraid that I’ve caught the “upgrade bug,” I’m expecting some disposable income soon, and I’m considering disposing of it on a carbon-frame bike. I’m a 40+ recreational rider, using the bike to keep fit. No racing. A couple of Centuries a year, mostly to stay ready for the MS 150. All of my former cycling companions have quit, so I’m busy trying to keep up with the 20-somethings in group rides. I've got a hand-lugged Reynolds 531 model made by a local Houston framebuilder (Romic) in 1990, and upgraded two years ago from 7-speed 105 downtube shifting to 9-speed Ultegra STI. I’ve convinced myself psychologically that a “fast” new bike will help me ride faster. I’m not terribly interested in punishing myself by moving to an aluminum frame, so I’m looking at carbon. The two candidates I’ve mentioned look like to be the best out there at the price I can reasonably afford. They’re about the same price. They both have local dealers. In my size, 52 cm, they have nearly identical geometries, which (for the most part, except for wheelbase) also happen to coincide with that of my current ride. I just need to know which bike represents my best long-term option…

Advantage Felt: The Trek is “mostly Ultegra” (I know the Trek web site says it’s all Ultegra, but the LBS floor models all have the Bontrager cranks), while the Felt is “mostly Dura-Ace.” The component level of the Felt seems to be higher in general. I’m sure I’d be replacing the saddle of either bike, so there’s no need to remind me how cheap the Trek’s is.

Advantage Trek: The Felt “Lifetime Warranty” looks somewhat sketchy, in that the buyer is still responsible for labor charges when the frame is repaired. Felt wouldn’t even answer my e-mail question about how the decision is made between replace and repair (and how they resolve their inherent conflict of interest).

Advantage Romic: I get to pocket the $2600 and continue to be the only one in the group riding steel.

Advantage unknown:

The Felt is sold with a compact crankset. I can ride 23-24 mph even in the small chainring on my current bike (yes, I’m comfortable keeping cadence at 104), so I only hit the big ring during serious tailwinds or in big packs. I never get to use the big ring/small cog combos. So I don’t know how important this is. I’m guessing I’d be shifting in the front more often, but is that balanced by having more usable gears? Is it a real weight savings?
The Felt has curved fork blades, like my old steel bike, but a “wishbone” seatstay arrangement. The Trek has straight-blade forks, but separate stays all the way up to the seatpost. Obviously, neither is going to behave the same as a 15-year-old steel bike, but which one will “feel” better, given my comfort level with the old bike?
Living on the Texas Gulf coast, does the steel bike actually have another decade of use in it? The cable guides are getting some surface rust, and I see some brown out of the fork and chainstay weep holes after a ride in the rain, but the insides of the seat and head tubes are smooth.


Or is there a bike I’m missing? The Specialized Tarmac has a model in the same price range, but those things sure are fugly. I don’t think my pocketbook meets the entry requirements for Cannondale’s carbon.

The Cannondale had Ksyrium Elites. The Felt has Askiums, crap for a $3K bike if you ask me. Does anybody actually ride the Bontragers that come with the Trek?


at a shop today. It was solid black with tone-on-tone lettering. Looks like a Synapse (which the press says is supposed to be a comfortable carbon bike) except the bike at the shop had an Ultegra drivetrain except for the compact cranks and Dura-Ace rear derailleur. Price listed on the bike was $3200.

The Cannondale had Ksyrium Elites. The Felt has Askiums, crap for a $3K bike if you ask me. Does anybody actually ride the Bontragers that come with the Trek?
Well, I'm certainly not a "wheel snob." If anything, I'll take durability over lightness. I don't want to have to tweak them after every pothole (of which there are many in Houston). The Campy Ypsilons that came with my Romic never needed more than an annual truing, and that made me happy. I obviously had to replace them in the 9-speed upgrade, and I went with the bottom-of-the-line Neuvations, which have turned out to be just as tough.

You have the rare oppurtunity to get a custom steel frame and have you name on it at no extra charge.

Doug Curtis of Curtlo cycles will build you a steel bike to your custom measurements and riding style. You can add an Ultegra or Centaur build kit from him to make it a complete bike. The cost would be at least a few hundred below the trek or felt and the ride could very well be better.

Use the money you save to get a super bling paint job or ask him to do some custom design like bent seat stays, internal cable routing, fender mounts etc.

http://www.curtlo.com/frame_catalog/road.html


You will have a sweet custom bike and still be the only one riding steel on your group rides.

Felt is a lot newer and there seem to be far fewer anecdotes about how they treat customers in warranty situations.

But don't hold the "customer is responsible for labor in warranty situations" clause against them.

Trek does the same thing even if it is not clearly spelled out. Basically what this entails is if the frame breaks you need to take the bike to a Trek/Felt dealer, the dealer will disassemble the bike at your cost, ship the frame alone to the manufacturer, and then the manufacturer will either fix or replace the frame and send it back to the dealer. Then you need to pay the dealer to put the bike back together.

If you can do the work yourself you will save a lot of this money. I had a warranty situation with Trek and I had the bike partially disassembled when I took it to the dealer, not realizing how the charges worked. Trek sent a new frame and my total cost for the shipping + labor was only $100. Not bad for getting a $1000 new frame out of the deal.

Felt is probably the same thing, it is no big deal.

BTW.. you don't mention how many of the parts on your older bike you've replaced. If you replaced the entire groupset it is probably in good shape, but if your BB, wheel hubs, etc.. have not been serviced in a long time you will probably get almost as much of a speed boost just by servicing your current bike as you would by buying a new one. A lot of the mental "speed bost" of buying a new bike is just a result of all the parts on the new bike being in perfect order compared to your old bike.

If you're in Texas, a strong rider, and it's fairly flat the compact crank is probably worthless.. you don't need it unless you're quite out of shape or are riding extreme mountain conditions. If you want the Felt negotiate with the dealer to have the compact setup swapped out as part of the bike purchase, hopefully at no cost to you. If you don't actually need the lower ratios on the Compact crank you are basically trading off more front derauilluer shifting for tighter ratios in the back.. IMO (I have both setups) shifting the front deraiuller more with the compact setup is a lot more annoying then slightly wider spacing in the back.

Advantage Felt: The Trek is “mostly Ultegra” (I know the Trek web site says it’s all Ultegra, but the LBS floor models all have the Bontrager cranks), while the Felt is “mostly Dura-Ace.” The component level of the Felt seems to be higher in general. I’m sure I’d be replacing the saddle of either bike, so there’s no need to remind me how cheap the Trek’s is.

.
Shopping for a new bike is always fun. I kicked tires in many bike shops a few months ago when I replaced my bike. I looked at Felt, Trek, Specialized and many others. If I remember correctly, the only Dura-Ace on the F3C were the shifters and rear derailleur. The crankset was Truvativ and the brakes were no-name. The wheels were Aksium - about the cheapest you'd find at this level.

Shopping for a new bike is always fun. I kicked tires in many bike shops a few months ago when I replaced my bike. I looked at Felt, Trek, Specialized and many others. If I remember correctly, the only Dura-Ace on the F3C were the shifters and rear derailleur. The crankset was Trutativ and the brakes were no-name. The wheels were Aksium - about the cheapest you'd find at this level.
He's right. Search the archives. The Fc3 is not full Dura Ace.

The Trek is “mostly Ultegra” (I know the Trek web site says it’s all Ultegra, but the LBS floor models all have the Bontrager cranks),

I bought a 2005 Madone 5.2 this past June which is all Ultegra except seatpost, headset and (no) pedals. Perhaps these floor models are a bit long in the tooth - "shop guard dogs", as we used to call them :D

We are a Scott, Spec., and Felt dealer. They all have great warranty, the Felt for example is wonderful. We had a customer crack his frame and he was shipped a nice Colavita team frame, awesome bike. Scott and Spec. are great to deal with so no worry about warranty. I just don't see the draw to Trek, even when I first started I never liked their bikes and still dont. Spec. and Scott can both offer more in most price points then Felt and although great bikes, Felt is not quite so progressive. I of the two I would go with the Felt. Wheel wise, I had over 10k miles on "crappy" Equippes and I have NEVER trued those things and they are still perfect.

K

We are a Scott, Spec., and Felt dealer...
K
Thanks! I just discovered that there's a semi-local Scott dealer as well. I'll start to check out those deals...

Thanks, ben,

new hubs, BB, and headset in 2004, with an overhaul on all this year, so that's not the issue.

I REALLY appreciate the pointer on the compact crankset. As you surmised, it's flat as a pancake here, so an 11-23 cluster on the rear does just fine with a standard chainring.

I LOVE mine, great looking, riding, and value bikes. Scott is doing a lot in the US now and really have a very strong line!

Per web info the Scott CR SL full Dura Ace and Mavic Ksryium SL's retails for $5,799
The Felt F2C full Dura Ace and Mavic Ksryium SL's retails for $3,999

so is the Scott frame worth $1,800 more than the Felt?

My local shop sells both Scott and Felt and just due to the price difference I just ordered a Felt F2C.

KMan



We are a Scott, Spec., and Felt dealer. They all have great warranty, the Felt for example is wonderful. We had a customer crack his frame and he was shipped a nice Colavita team frame, awesome bike. Scott and Spec. are great to deal with so no worry about warranty. I just don't see the draw to Trek, even when I first started I never liked their bikes and still dont. Spec. and Scott can both offer more in most price points then Felt and although great bikes, Felt is not quite so progressive. I of the two I would go with the Felt. Wheel wise, I had over 10k miles on "crappy" Equippes and I have NEVER trued those things and they are still perfect.

K

Per web info the Scott CR SL full Dura Ace and Mavic Ksryium SL's retails for $5,799
The Felt F2C full Dura Ace and Mavic Ksryium SL's retails for $3,999

so is the Scott frame worth $1,800 more than the Felt?

My local shop sells both Scott and Felt and just due to the price difference I just ordered a Felt F2C.

KMan

Scotts have a great rep, stiff, very strong, and fast. Also on the harsh side for a carbon bike. Might be perfect for you if you keep you steel rig for the long distance rides, and use the Scott to keep up with the younguns.
Cycling is huge here in Northern California for us 40 somethings. My team is a masters focused team.

By the way, I believe those Bonty cranks are Truitive (sp) carbons which are excellent and very light.

On the Ultegra/DA side of things, I ride a set of each (10sp) and have no preference, although I really like the DA crankset. I don't have ultegra cranks on the other bike though - it's FSA carbon.

Ride them all as far as they will let you. The answer may become clear.
Have fun.

I’m afraid that I’ve caught the “upgrade bug,” I’m expecting some disposable income soon, and I’m considering disposing of it on a carbon-frame bike. I’m a 40+ recreational rider, using the bike to keep fit. No racing. A couple of Centuries a year, mostly to stay ready for the MS 150. All of my former cycling companions have quit, so I’m busy trying to keep up with the 20-somethings in group rides. I've got a hand-lugged Reynolds 531 model made by a local Houston framebuilder (Romic) in 1990, and upgraded two years ago from 7-speed 105 downtube shifting to 9-speed Ultegra STI. I’ve convinced myself psychologically that a “fast” new bike will help me ride faster. I’m not terribly interested in punishing myself by moving to an aluminum frame, so I’m looking at carbon. The two candidates I’ve mentioned look like to be the best out there at the price I can reasonably afford. They’re about the same price. They both have local dealers. In my size, 52 cm, they have nearly identical geometries, which (for the most part, except for wheelbase) also happen to coincide with that of my current ride. I just need to know which bike represents my best long-term option…

Advantage Felt: The Trek is “mostly Ultegra” (I know the Trek web site says it’s all Ultegra, but the LBS floor models all have the Bontrager cranks), while the Felt is “mostly Dura-Ace.” The component level of the Felt seems to be higher in general. I’m sure I’d be replacing the saddle of either bike, so there’s no need to remind me how cheap the Trek’s is.

Advantage Trek: The Felt “Lifetime Warranty” looks somewhat sketchy, in that the buyer is still responsible for labor charges when the frame is repaired. Felt wouldn’t even answer my e-mail question about how the decision is made between replace and repair (and how they resolve their inherent conflict of interest).

Advantage Romic: I get to pocket the $2600 and continue to be the only one in the group riding steel.

Advantage unknown:

The Felt is sold with a compact crankset. I can ride 23-24 mph even in the small chainring on my current bike (yes, I’m comfortable keeping cadence at 104), so I only hit the big ring during serious tailwinds or in big packs. I never get to use the big ring/small cog combos. So I don’t know how important this is. I’m guessing I’d be shifting in the front more often, but is that balanced by having more usable gears? Is it a real weight savings?
The Felt has curved fork blades, like my old steel bike, but a “wishbone” seatstay arrangement. The Trek has straight-blade forks, but separate stays all the way up to the seatpost. Obviously, neither is going to behave the same as a 15-year-old steel bike, but which one will “feel” better, given my comfort level with the old bike?
Living on the Texas Gulf coast, does the steel bike actually have another decade of use in it? The cable guides are getting some surface rust, and I see some brown out of the fork and chainstay weep holes after a ride in the rain, but the insides of the seat and head tubes are smooth.


Or is there a bike I’m missing? The Specialized Tarmac has a model in the same price range, but those things sure are fugly. I don’t think my pocketbook meets the entry requirements for Cannondale’s carbon.
FWIW-I've had my Madone 5.2 for about a year, have over 5,000 miles on it, and absolutely love it. No problems (except for the Bontrager tires), and my mph average has gone up about 1 mph.

After riding several bikes, including the above-listed, the Motobecane Immortal Force, and the Orbea Orca, I discovered that EVERYTHING made of CF or Al demonstrates significantly less lateral frame flex than my old steel bike, and is going to give me nearly the same speed advantage. Then, thinking long and hard about the fact that I tend to drop my bike to the ground at least once a month while loading/unloading/moving it, I realized that I didn't want to have to deal with a zero-speed "crash replacement" of a carbon frame, and I started looking at Aluminum main triangles with CF forks and stays. This led to another batch of bikes that all rode similarly, so it came down to price. In the end, two bikes that get advertised here floated to the top of the value per dollar list: the Flyte SRS-2 and the Ibex Aprisa Team Pro. Flyte's pre-sale customer service struck me as more friendly, and their bike looks a lot nicer, so they won. I've been riding the Flyte for a week now, and my average speed is up by about a mile per hour. I'm very happy with my purchase. I'll post a review of the SRS-2 once I've got ~200-300 miles on it, but I saved enough money over my original choices to buy the kids a new computer, and I think I ended up with just as nice a bike.

Per web info the Scott CR SL full Dura Ace and Mavic Ksryium SL's retails for $5,799
The Felt F2C full Dura Ace and Mavic Ksryium SL's retails for $3,999

so is the Scott frame worth $1,800 more than the Felt?

My local shop sells both Scott and Felt and just due to the price difference I just ordered a Felt F2C.

KMan


Well the Felt is stocked with Felt house parts (bar, stem, post, seat) and I have found there house brand to be "ok". It is a bit on the heavy side and just a bit plain. The FSA SLK's are also pigs of a crankset, and are I believe are 100 grams heavier than DA, and over 250 grams heavier than my Pulsions. The SL is full WCS, which is lighter and about equal on stiffness. The frame on the felt is also heavier than the CR1, that and the innovation in the CR1 is loads above Felt. We just dropped them as they simply didn't spark anyone. Back to the cranks, I found the SLK's to be really just bad cranks, FSA's old cranks were nice, these are just not quality. The chain rings are poor, the finish just plain doesn't last and again the weight. However, if you simply consider the frame, yes I feel the Scott frame is worth $1800 more :). The Felts are nice bikes, but I just don't know how much longer they will really last as they don't really offer much along the lines of innovations, and their prices can be matched by other more innovative companies.

K

After riding several bikes, including the above-listed, the Motobecane Immortal Force, and the Orbea Orca, I discovered that EVERYTHING made of CF or Al demonstrates significantly less lateral frame flex than my old steel bike, and is going to give me nearly the same speed advantage. Then, thinking long and hard about the fact that I tend to drop my bike to the ground at least once a month while loading/unloading/moving it, I realized that I didn't want to have to deal with a zero-speed "crash replacement" of a carbon frame, and I started looking at Aluminum main triangles with CF forks and stays. This led to another batch of bikes that all rode similarly, so it came down to price. In the end, two bikes that get advertised here floated to the top of the value per dollar list: the Flyte SRS-2 and the Ibex Aprisa Team Pro. Flyte's pre-sale customer service struck me as more friendly, and their bike looks a lot nicer, so they won. I've been riding the Flyte for a week now, and my average speed is up by about a mile per hour. I'm very happy with my purchase. I'll post a review of the SRS-2 once I've got ~200-300 miles on it, but I saved enough money over my original choices to buy the kids a new computer, and I think I ended up with just as nice a bike.

While it can be very tempting to drop everything you can afford on a new bike the law of diminishing returns is certainly true for us recreational riders. I can not imagine that you would have seen any difference in either of you first two choices compared to the Flyte.