Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 54
  1. #26
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    5,710
    The 2.1 is the bike I actually tested and the weight you were quoted is spot on. I think the size small/52cm I tested was 17.8 or something. The weight for the 1.3 also sounds consistent with what I saw that day. The 2.1 is a really nice bike man. You could also probably get it into the low 17 pound range with a change to carbon clinchers and a couple of minor component changes down the road. The thing rides nice stock though. That being said, knowing a bit about how much climbing you do and your goals, I would opt for the cheapest 1 series even if it means holding off on the power meter, etc. You will probably always be second guessing yourself if you don't. If I am wrong about that though, you could absolutely shred on the 2.1. It's a great value at that price. If I didn't like the Giant TCR Advanced Disc 1 and Tarmac so much, it would be in the mix for me as well. I am pretty sure I am going to go with the Giant though. It will address both my crit and gran finding interests perfectly. Get'r done!
    Every climb has its end, for verily with difficulty there is relief...

  2. #27
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    5,710
    I guess the other way to look at is do you really want Oval wheels? That's a big chunk of the difference in weight and I personally think you can do better. For instance, Trek just released a fairly lightweight carbon clincher set that comes tubeless ready for $1200. You throw those on the 2.1 and how much better is the 1.3 at that point? The 2.1 will never be as light as the 1.3, but with the right changes you could close that gap in a major way and still save $$$$. You really can't lose here to be honest.
    Every climb has its end, for verily with difficulty there is relief...

  3. #28
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    5,710
    My understanding is that these are available in both rim and disc with no price difference.

    Bontrager Aeolus Pro 3 TLR first look - BikeRadar USA
    Every climb has its end, for verily with difficulty there is relief...

  4. #29
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by TDFbound View Post
    Upon looking online today, Performance Bicycle is having another promotion of 30% store credit back on any bike purchase. This, combined with some 2017 models on sale, provides my budget some serious purchasing power. The sale is only good through Sept 4, so I've got to make some quick decisions. I'm good with getting a Fuji bike if it means making my dollar stretch this far, as opposed to the BMC I was looking at. Here is the rundown on models and pricing:

    My budget from now through next tax season is $5000

    2017 Fuji SL 2.1 Disc- $2600, Ultegra 6800 mechanical w/ hydro discs, heavier frame, I can buy a Wahoo New KICKR trainer and Quarq Dfour power meter and still have $700 left in my pocket. The salesman on the phone weighed this bike w/out pedals at 18.1 lbs. My current 2003 Cannondale CAAD7 w/ pedals and cages is 18.5 lbs.

    2017 Fuji SL 1.3 Disc- $4150, Dura Ace 9000 mechanical w/ hydro discs, light frame, I can buy a Wahoo New KICKR trainer and Quarq Dfour power meter and be $400 over budget.

    2018 Fuji SL 1.3 Disc- $5100, Dura Ace 9100 mechanical w/ hydro discs, light frame, probably not available until mid-November, and assuming I can catch another 30% credit promo, this bike with the trainer and power meter would put me at $750 over budget. This bike will probably weigh just under 16.5 lbs.

    The price of the 2.1 w/ Ultegra seems like a good value, especially considering I can buy two other high dollar items on my wish list and still be under budget. However, I can't help but wonder if the better frame of the other bikes would be worth the money in the long run, especially considering my goals of returning to racing and wanting to "win" organized century rides and gran fondos.

    As much as I LOVE the idea of the newest bike with the newest parts, I think maybe the 2017 SL 1.3 Disc would be the best compromise between staying on budget and getting top end parts in a timely manner. I do, after all, need a bike NOW if I want to ride any more on the road before Thanksgiving.

    Thoughts?
    If you're picking between these three, I agree that the 2017 1.3 would be the smart choice. End of season sales are great value. I didn't look closely at frame differences between the 2018 and 2017 1.3, but they didn't look drastically different (as opposed to the 2017 and 2018 Tarmacs). Would throw the majority of my money at the nicest frame possible, knowing that components wear out and can always be upgraded.

  5. #30
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by TDFbound View Post
    I definitely understand what you mean- I am only about 185ish lbs, but that is still heavy enough to be rough on a minimalist bike. If I were to get serious about riding and also be in the peak of race season, my weight would be more like 170-175. I'm just now getting back in shape but I'm not too far away from "good" shape should I try to achieve it.

    Unfortunately my bike search just took on a greater sense of urgency. While cleaning my bike last night, I noticed my frame had developed a large crack across the top tube, so my frame is basically toast. Mist of the bikes I was looking at won't be available until November or later, assuming I got one of the first shipment of bikes with the new Ultegra disc group. I didnt mind waiting when my bike was still good- I was just going to buy a trainer to use as the weather got colder than I like for outdoor rides. Now it's looking like I might be stuck on the trainer for the next three months!!

    My current bike choices are the Fuji SL Disc 1.3 with mechanical DuraAce for like $5000 from Performance or a BMC Teammachine SLR01 with mechanical Ultegra for $5300. BMC also has a SLR 02 version for $4000 but it weighs like 19 pounds! I can't see myself winning races in the mountains on a bike that will weigh close to 20 lbs one I get pedals and a blinky light and bottle cages etc...
    Glad to know the other brand disc bikes are heavy as well. Mine is right on 20 with everything. But it is an XL. I would love to build up a lighter, better quality of wheels, but it's not in the cards. Would love to figure out the brake shudder more though. Interesting reading how many people are having that problem also.

  6. #31
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    179
    Quote Originally Posted by Rashadabd View Post
    I guess the other way to look at is do you really want Oval wheels? That's a big chunk of the difference in weight and I personally think you can do better. For instance, Trek just released a fairly lightweight carbon clincher set that comes tubeless ready for $1200. You throw those on the 2.1 and how much better is the 1.3 at that point? The 2.1 will never be as light as the 1.3, but with the right changes you could close that gap in a major way and still save $$$$. You really can't lose here to be honest.
    Yeah I'm not in love with the wheels on any of the bikes I've looked at. You are right, upgrading wheels on the 2.1 SL Disc to the ones I want would be an easy way to drop almost a pound! The 2.1 comes with aluminum wheels at 1885 grams, and the 1.3 comes with aluminum wheels at 1500 grams. Curiously, the bikes spec sheet says the 1.3 has centerlock hubs, but the wheel's own page says 6-bolt hubs.

    I'd like to eventually get a pair of Roval CLX 50 Disc (1415 grams), Bontrager Aeolus 5 TLR Disc D3 (1510 grams), or Bontrager Aeolus 3 TLR Disc D3 (1450 grams). I think the Bontrager would be a more robust wheel, but both companies offer a comparable warranty and offer similar rider weight limits, so I should be ok on either one I think. Those Aeolus Pro 3 TLR wheels look like an amazing value! They are not even that much heavier than the more expensive ones, so definitely worth considering.

    Rovals have 20.7mm inner width, Bontrager has 19mm inner width, if that makes much of a difference. I've always ridden old school wheels which I believe are 15 mm inner width. I don't plan to often run a tire larger than 28mm, and will most likely race on 23 - 25mm tires.

  7. #32
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    179
    Quote Originally Posted by Tubbycosmos View Post
    Would throw the majority of my money at the nicest frame possible, knowing that components wear out and can always be upgraded.
    I can't even begin to imagine how long a person would have to ride in order to wear out any components besides a chain and maybe a cassette. My Ultegra 6500 (9-speed) is still going strong and reliable as ever, though the levers do look a bit rough after a number of crashes and some odd wormy-looking corrosion on the levers (I also may or may not have taken a metal file to them several times to remove burrs caused by impacts with the asphalt). The original crank and chainrings had around 70,000 miles on them when I replaced them with a compact crank, and they were not in need of replacing. I only went through a couple cassettes and obviously a lot of chains. Heck, even my jockey wheels are original parts!

  8. #33
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by TDFbound View Post
    I can't even begin to imagine how long a person would have to ride in order to wear out any components besides a chain and maybe a cassette. My Ultegra 6500 (9-speed) is still going strong and reliable as ever, though the levers do look a bit rough after a number of crashes and some odd wormy-looking corrosion on the levers (I also may or may not have taken a metal file to them several times to remove burrs caused by impacts with the asphalt). The original crank and chainrings had around 70,000 miles on them when I replaced them with a compact crank, and they were not in need of replacing. I only went through a couple cassettes and obviously a lot of chains. Heck, even my jockey wheels are original parts!
    Wow you did well with your components! Maybe it's from biking nearly daily 9 months of the year here in the rain of the pacific northwest, but I managed to start forming some decent sharks teeth after just a couple of years of riding on my sram rival group. Also wore through both a front and rear hub despite regular maintenance with a mechanic including chain changes.

  9. #34
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    5,710
    Yeah man, the 2.1 with a nice set of wheels really isn't a bad thought. That could work out well.
    Every climb has its end, for verily with difficulty there is relief...

  10. #35
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Lombard's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    5,527
    Quote Originally Posted by Chader09 View Post
    Keep in mind that TA doesn't magically make this overall issue (dumb people) go away. The wheel might not be as likely to fall out once the axle is loose, but it can still slide out when not installed well.

    I have seen some overly complex axles and levers that are easier to screw up than an oldie QR.

    IMHO, the advantage in TA is the rigidity of the axle and dropouts.
    Nothing is 100%. Rigidity is one argument. The main thing though is the narrow clearance between pads and discs. TA gets you in exactly the same place each time making brake rub much less likely.
    “Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital.” -- Aaron Levenstein

    "Beware of geeks bearing formulas."
    -- Warren Buffett

    "Education is what you get when you read the fine print. Experience is what you get when you don't. -- Pete Seeger



  11. #36
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    265
    As for through-axle, it's an idiotic design - yet another symptom of an industry whose products are designed by "engineers" who don't know anything about engineering. There is zero evidence whatsoever that it makes anything "more stiff" (but you'll readily find plenty of ads throwing around that statement as if it were fact, along with a handful of dummies saying that their through-axle bikes fee stiffer.... kind of the way sugar pills reduce pain when you tell people they're narcotics).

    There is zero benefit to through axle. Zero. Zippo. Nada. But it's the future, so you might as well purchase a frame set up for it.

  12. #37
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    5,710
    Ok, but ummm.... I think I will defer to the guys that get paid to design bikes.


    Some things to consider:

    https://cyclingtips.com/2015/10/road...axels-but-why/

    AngryAsian: Bring on the thru-axles - BikeRadar USA
    Every climb has its end, for verily with difficulty there is relief...

  13. #38
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    2,502
    Quote Originally Posted by Waspinator View Post
    As for through-axle, it's an idiotic design - yet another symptom of an industry whose products are designed by "engineers" who don't know anything about engineering. There is zero evidence whatsoever that it makes anything "more stiff" (but you'll readily find plenty of ads throwing around that statement as if it were fact, along with a handful of dummies saying that their through-axle bikes fee stiffer.... kind of the way sugar pills reduce pain when you tell people they're narcotics).

    There is zero benefit to through axle. Zero. Zippo. Nada. But it's the future, so you might as well purchase a frame set up for it.
    This act was cute when you first posted it and we thought you were just trolling.

    Now it's just sad.

  14. #39
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Lombard's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    5,527
    Quote Originally Posted by Waspinator View Post
    As for through-axle, it's an idiotic design - yet another symptom of an industry whose products are designed by "engineers" who don't know anything about engineering. There is zero evidence whatsoever that it makes anything "more stiff" (but you'll readily find plenty of ads throwing around that statement as if it were fact, along with a handful of dummies saying that their through-axle bikes fee stiffer.... kind of the way sugar pills reduce pain when you tell people they're narcotics).

    There is zero benefit to through axle. Zero. Zippo. Nada. But it's the future, so you might as well purchase a frame set up for it.
    There you go again.
    “Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital.” -- Aaron Levenstein

    "Beware of geeks bearing formulas."
    -- Warren Buffett

    "Education is what you get when you read the fine print. Experience is what you get when you don't. -- Pete Seeger



  15. #40
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    235
    Having ridden disc brake bikes with noodly titanium QRs, stiff Dura-Ace QRs and thru-axles, going to have to say it makes a huge difference when I'm sawing my bike back and forth out of the saddle.

  16. #41
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    265
    Quote Originally Posted by Rashadabd View Post
    Ok, but ummm.... I think I will defer to the guys that get paid to design bikes.


    Some things to consider:

    https://cyclingtips.com/2015/10/road...axels-but-why/

    AngryAsian: Bring on the thru-axles - BikeRadar USA
    I've read this before and pure (and erroneous) supposition. Basically, it's just plain false.

    And at a bare minimum, it's certainly unsubstantiated.

  17. #42
    Adorable Furry Hombre
    Reputation: Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    24,803
    Quote Originally Posted by Waspinator View Post
    I've read this before and pure (and erroneous) supposition. Basically, it's just plain false.

    And at a bare minimum, it's certainly unsubstantiated.
    And, for the sake of the peanut gallery...Tell me again how many bikes with thru-axles have you ever owned?
    "Refreshingly Unconcerned With The Vulgar Exigencies Of Veracity "

  18. #43
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    2,502
    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    And, for the sake of the peanut gallery...Tell me again how many bikes with thru-axles have you ever owned?

    Just look up his last posts on the topic. They will tell you all you need to know.

  19. #44
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    265
    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    And, for the sake of the peanut gallery...Tell me again how many bikes with thru-axles have you ever owned?
    Two. One mountain bike and one road bike.

    And despite the fact that I weigh 225lbs, there's not a shred of improvement with through-axle.

  20. #45
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    265
    Quote Originally Posted by Migen21 View Post
    There is a discernable difference in stiffness of a thru-axle vs a QR.
    Can you support that statement with any sort of evidence? Or are you just parroting what someone else told you?

    And please, don't give me any personal observations.

  21. #46
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    265
    Quote Originally Posted by Rashadabd View Post
    Ok, but ummm.... I think I will defer to the guys that get paid to design bikes.


    Some things to consider:

    https://cyclingtips.com/2015/10/road...axels-but-why/

    AngryAsian: Bring on the thru-axles - BikeRadar USA
    Quoting the first article:

    "A recent comparison of QR and TA versions of a rigid off-road fork found that there was no significant difference in the performance of the forks. Minor improvements were noted though, suggesting that if there are any gains to be made on the road, they will be marginal."

    I'd modify that statement to say "no difference whatsoever".

  22. #47
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    5,710
    Quote Originally Posted by Waspinator View Post
    I've read this before and pure (and erroneous) supposition. Basically, it's just plain false.

    And at a bare minimum, it's certainly unsubstantiated.
    Glad you could clear that up for all of the engineers and bike manufacturers. Nice work.
    Every climb has its end, for verily with difficulty there is relief...

  23. #48
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    5,710
    Quote Originally Posted by Waspinator View Post
    Quoting the first article:

    "A recent comparison of QR and TA versions of a rigid off-road fork found that there was no significant difference in the performance of the forks. Minor improvements were noted though, suggesting that if there are any gains to be made on the road, they will be marginal."

    I'd modify that statement to say "no difference whatsoever".
    Wait, I thought they were worthless and full of erroneous information? Now, read the rest....

    Oh, and once you change the wording it becomes your opinion again and not the author's point, so why even quote him????
    Every climb has its end, for verily with difficulty there is relief...

  24. #49
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    2,502
    Quote Originally Posted by Rashadabd View Post
    Wait, I thought they were worthless and full of erroneous information? Now, read the rest....

    Oh, and once you change the wording it becomes your opinion again and not the author's point, so why even quote him????
    Just ignore the troll. He either didn't read his own links, or he didn't think we would (they provide plenty of evidence that TA's are a better/safer design than QR, especially given the context of disc brakes).

  25. #50
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Lombard's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    5,527
    This bears repeating:

    Road Discs- Post vs Flat mount and QR vs Thru Axle-tradition.jpeg

    And just in case any of you missed The Waspinator's original post on this, here it is for S&G's:

    Why quick release is a vastly superior design to thru-axle.
    “Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital.” -- Aaron Levenstein

    "Beware of geeks bearing formulas."
    -- Warren Buffett

    "Education is what you get when you read the fine print. Experience is what you get when you don't. -- Pete Seeger



Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Road Disc Fork with Thru-Axle - Does it exist?
    By vitasoyboi in forum General Cycling Discussion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 05-12-2016, 08:07 PM
  2. Question about thru-axle wheels on road bike
    By Trek_5200 in forum Wheels and Tires
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 02-29-2016, 01:03 AM
  3. Road disc thru axle wheelset?
    By thisisthebeave in forum General Cycling Discussion
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 09-16-2015, 04:24 PM
  4. Thru Axle roof rack adapter for a carbon road bike
    By C59rocks in forum General Cycling Discussion
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 07-18-2015, 06:56 AM
  5. Replies: 16
    Last Post: 01-09-2009, 09:00 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •