This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
I'm looking for a bit of a do it all bike and was looking at cyclocross, someone recommended a cotic escapade. It'll mainly be uses for commuting, touring and a bit on rough tracks with pulling a kids bike trailer although that is soon coming to an end.
The lightness of carbon appeals but if you come off is it a bit too delicate...I want something that'll last and stand up to a few knocks!
Any recommendations or opinions?
The lightness of carbon appeals but if you come off is it a bit too delicate...I want something that'll last and stand up to a few knocks!
Any recommendations or opinions?
In reply to Lynsety:
If you're planning on touring and pulling a bike trailer, I'd go steel or aluminium - both of which would be more likely to have things like pannier/mud guard mount points and be a bit more robust than carbon.
Having said that, there are carbon frames with mount points available and, failing that, I've used this rack on my carbon frame for a light overnight trip: http://www.blackburndesign.com/en_eu/racks/ex-1-disc-rack.html (similar available for the front - see website). You can get a seatpost clamp with rack mounts like this: http://road.cc/content/review/83283-salsa-rack-lock-seat-collar although I bodged a bracket and zip-tied it to the wishbone.
If you're planning on touring and pulling a bike trailer, I'd go steel or aluminium - both of which would be more likely to have things like pannier/mud guard mount points and be a bit more robust than carbon.
Having said that, there are carbon frames with mount points available and, failing that, I've used this rack on my carbon frame for a light overnight trip: http://www.blackburndesign.com/en_eu/racks/ex-1-disc-rack.html (similar available for the front - see website). You can get a seatpost clamp with rack mounts like this: http://road.cc/content/review/83283-salsa-rack-lock-seat-collar although I bodged a bracket and zip-tied it to the wishbone.
In reply to Lynsety:
Had this issue with my current commuter. Went with aluminum. A quality frame won't give too much away weightwise to carbon and the peace of mind makes up for that weight difference anyway.
Had this issue with my current commuter. Went with aluminum. A quality frame won't give too much away weightwise to carbon and the peace of mind makes up for that weight difference anyway.
Post edited at 16:01
In reply to Lynsety:
I can't recommend enough the Surly Crosscheck. It's a lot of bike for £1k.
Steel frame and very robust . No discs on mine but they can be fitted. It's got braze ons for panniers and mudguards. Nice wide drop bars and it can be fitted with cowhorn bars which give more control when towing.
I use mine for rutted country lanes, forest track and easy off road with no buckled wheels. I'm sixteen stones.
Yes it's heavy, but this provides a good workout and the reassurance that it can be welded if by any chance you manage to break it .
I can't recommend enough the Surly Crosscheck. It's a lot of bike for £1k.
Steel frame and very robust . No discs on mine but they can be fitted. It's got braze ons for panniers and mudguards. Nice wide drop bars and it can be fitted with cowhorn bars which give more control when towing.
I use mine for rutted country lanes, forest track and easy off road with no buckled wheels. I'm sixteen stones.
Yes it's heavy, but this provides a good workout and the reassurance that it can be welded if by any chance you manage to break it .
In reply to Lynsety:
Cotic looks a nice bike but the price seems a bit high.
Consider the cube cross bikes too. Similar spec will be a few hundred quid cheaper.
Ive got the cross race sl and its we'll specced for its price, alu frame with carbon forks, ultegra and Mavic aksiums. Stuck 23 conti slicks on it and used it as a road bike since getting it.
Cotic looks a nice bike but the price seems a bit high.
Consider the cube cross bikes too. Similar spec will be a few hundred quid cheaper.
Ive got the cross race sl and its we'll specced for its price, alu frame with carbon forks, ultegra and Mavic aksiums. Stuck 23 conti slicks on it and used it as a road bike since getting it.
In reply to Lynsety:
If you are actually going to race 'cross then go as light as you can. You'll run way quicker with a lighter bike on your shoulder. If you just like the idea of a 'do all' bike that you can give a bit of abuse to then steel with mudguard and rack attachments may be the way to go. You'll always be compromising in one area with one bike to cover all the bases you mention, you need to prioritize what's going to be most important to you. The bike thats good to race on certainly won't be the best thing to pull a kids trailer.
If you are actually going to race 'cross then go as light as you can. You'll run way quicker with a lighter bike on your shoulder. If you just like the idea of a 'do all' bike that you can give a bit of abuse to then steel with mudguard and rack attachments may be the way to go. You'll always be compromising in one area with one bike to cover all the bases you mention, you need to prioritize what's going to be most important to you. The bike thats good to race on certainly won't be the best thing to pull a kids trailer.
Post edited at 17:09
In reply to Indy: do you think a 'quality' , meaning light, Al bike is any more crash proof than carbon. I've seen plenty of al tubes crumpled by being dropped and hitting an edge.
1
In reply to Lynsety:
I've just built myself an Escapade. There are definitely lighter and cheaper options, but it is rather nice.
For complete bikes it's surely hard to beat the Pinnacle Arkose from Evans - hydro brakes and Tiagra groupset for under a grand. Alternatively they do the Jamis Renegade which is steel frame and carbon fork.
I've just built myself an Escapade. There are definitely lighter and cheaper options, but it is rather nice.
For complete bikes it's surely hard to beat the Pinnacle Arkose from Evans - hydro brakes and Tiagra groupset for under a grand. Alternatively they do the Jamis Renegade which is steel frame and carbon fork.
In reply to due:
Just as long
Just as long as you don't expect them to do anything about it when something's wrong with it. They've worked long and hard to get their reputation down to where it is and they're not about to throw it away just because you've got some kids in a trailer and a bike that doesn't go.
Just as long
> For complete bikes it's surely hard to beat the Pinnacle Arkose from Evans - hydro brakes and Tiagra groupset for under a grand. Alternatively they do the Jamis Renegade which is steel frame and carbon fork.
Just as long as you don't expect them to do anything about it when something's wrong with it. They've worked long and hard to get their reputation down to where it is and they're not about to throw it away just because you've got some kids in a trailer and a bike that doesn't go.
1
In reply to nniff:
You are really angry with them aren't you!
To the OP, Cotics look very nice but they seem mega expensive compared to the less niche brands. For what you say you want it for I expect you could spend half that and get a great bike.
I've got a Boardman CX and it has been superb - has done all those things you mention except pull a trailer, for years. I've really smacked it around off road touring/bikepacking. The current version is 200 quid off at Halfords, so for 800 you get full hydraulic brakes - the only real weak point on mine (I've got BB5s which are fiddly). But Evans, Planet X, Wiggle, etc all have very competitively priced possibilities.
You are really angry with them aren't you!
To the OP, Cotics look very nice but they seem mega expensive compared to the less niche brands. For what you say you want it for I expect you could spend half that and get a great bike.
I've got a Boardman CX and it has been superb - has done all those things you mention except pull a trailer, for years. I've really smacked it around off road touring/bikepacking. The current version is 200 quid off at Halfords, so for 800 you get full hydraulic brakes - the only real weak point on mine (I've got BB5s which are fiddly). But Evans, Planet X, Wiggle, etc all have very competitively priced possibilities.
In reply to TobyA:
Oh yes! That's what happens when you blow your second chance. Still it's their problem, not mine. Any number of decent bike shops out there.
Anyway, for the OP, I find myself in a position of being able to comment with a fair degree of insight on carbon, aluminium, stainless steel and steel, as follows:
Aluminium - nice to ride - no vices and tough. Light. Happy with a significant coating of gunge and grime.
Steel - heavier (in my case), comfortable, tough as old boots, workhorse with mudguards and rack. Resistant to significant neglect
Carbon - stupid light, aero frame, stiff as a slab of armour plate. Bone-shaking, but a different frame design would give different qualities - choose with care, with particular regard to the seat stays I would suggest if you're after comfort. I reckon you could poke a pencil through the side of the big aero down tube. Bit of a pretty boy when it comes to maintenance and care, doesn't like grit and stuff.
Stainless steel - tough, light, stiff but absorbs all the bumps. Too good-looking to hide behind grime, but shrugs off anything.
Horses for courses - of all of the above, the stainless steel one is the keeper. Frame costs for the carbon and Stainless ones were about the same. The alloy one is an old Trek Discovery Channel for £350 off Gumtree, and the steel one was £650 about 8 years ago (it's a fixie).
If you want something to withstand a few knocks - I'd go steel, alloy, carbon. Mind you if you get the wrong knock on any of them, it won't go well. Carbon is the least able to withstand abrasion, but it's also repairable at a very reasonable cost if you know the right people http://www.carbonbikerepair.co.uk/ - One of their demo bikes is a TT bike that had been run over by a tipper truck and you'd never know.
> You are really angry with them aren't you!
Oh yes! That's what happens when you blow your second chance. Still it's their problem, not mine. Any number of decent bike shops out there.
Anyway, for the OP, I find myself in a position of being able to comment with a fair degree of insight on carbon, aluminium, stainless steel and steel, as follows:
Aluminium - nice to ride - no vices and tough. Light. Happy with a significant coating of gunge and grime.
Steel - heavier (in my case), comfortable, tough as old boots, workhorse with mudguards and rack. Resistant to significant neglect
Carbon - stupid light, aero frame, stiff as a slab of armour plate. Bone-shaking, but a different frame design would give different qualities - choose with care, with particular regard to the seat stays I would suggest if you're after comfort. I reckon you could poke a pencil through the side of the big aero down tube. Bit of a pretty boy when it comes to maintenance and care, doesn't like grit and stuff.
Stainless steel - tough, light, stiff but absorbs all the bumps. Too good-looking to hide behind grime, but shrugs off anything.
Horses for courses - of all of the above, the stainless steel one is the keeper. Frame costs for the carbon and Stainless ones were about the same. The alloy one is an old Trek Discovery Channel for £350 off Gumtree, and the steel one was £650 about 8 years ago (it's a fixie).
If you want something to withstand a few knocks - I'd go steel, alloy, carbon. Mind you if you get the wrong knock on any of them, it won't go well. Carbon is the least able to withstand abrasion, but it's also repairable at a very reasonable cost if you know the right people http://www.carbonbikerepair.co.uk/ - One of their demo bikes is a TT bike that had been run over by a tipper truck and you'd never know.
In reply to Lynsety: one comment. Why get a cyclocross bike at all. When I towed a child wagon I used a mountain bike as I liked the upright seating position a bit more. I know they're way in fashion, but worth thinking about. I'd rather have a good 29'er.
FWIW the only bikes I have in my garage now are steel and carbon. No more Al for me, I didn't really like any of the ones I'd owned. I recall seeing some guesses at reasonable lifespans for frames - something like steel 10, ti 20, al 5 and carbon no one quite knew. I
FWIW the only bikes I have in my garage now are steel and carbon. No more Al for me, I didn't really like any of the ones I'd owned. I recall seeing some guesses at reasonable lifespans for frames - something like steel 10, ti 20, al 5 and carbon no one quite knew. I
In reply to wbo:
The evidence in the garage suggests that that's nonsense.
I was talking, as we waited at a level crossing the other day, to someone riding a beautiful steel bike from 1932, updated with care to take modern axles and derailleurs. I failed to catch someone riding a one hundred year old TT bike (he was 80 himself) in a TT a few years ago. There are any number of events for elderly steel bikes.
My alloy road bike is late 90s I think and that shows no signs of falling apart. Carbon does deteriorate and become slightly more flexible with age, but to such a minute extent that you would not notice the difference when riding it.
Colour schemes - now those date......
> I recall seeing some guesses at reasonable lifespans for frames - something like steel 10, ti 20, al 5 and carbon no one quite knew.
The evidence in the garage suggests that that's nonsense.
I was talking, as we waited at a level crossing the other day, to someone riding a beautiful steel bike from 1932, updated with care to take modern axles and derailleurs. I failed to catch someone riding a one hundred year old TT bike (he was 80 himself) in a TT a few years ago. There are any number of events for elderly steel bikes.
My alloy road bike is late 90s I think and that shows no signs of falling apart. Carbon does deteriorate and become slightly more flexible with age, but to such a minute extent that you would not notice the difference when riding it.
Colour schemes - now those date......
In reply to wbo:
I've read some nonsense on the internet but that's right, right up near the top of the list.
> steel 10, ti 20, al 5 and carbon no one quite knew.
I've read some nonsense on the internet but that's right, right up near the top of the list.
1
In reply to Lemony:
The numbers seem way too low, but wbo has a point. As much as I love vintage steel race bikes, over the years I have managed to kill two steel frames. Quite possibly this depends on weight, but I had two nice Italian frames get soft around the bottom bracket due to material fatigue. Probably should have gone for frames with more sturdy tube sets, as so far my current 1980s Moser frame seems to survive just fine. In contrast, my aluminium MTB frame has so far survived all abuse. Not tried carbon or titanium yet.
CB
The numbers seem way too low, but wbo has a point. As much as I love vintage steel race bikes, over the years I have managed to kill two steel frames. Quite possibly this depends on weight, but I had two nice Italian frames get soft around the bottom bracket due to material fatigue. Probably should have gone for frames with more sturdy tube sets, as so far my current 1980s Moser frame seems to survive just fine. In contrast, my aluminium MTB frame has so far survived all abuse. Not tried carbon or titanium yet.
CB
In reply to Lynsety:
have you considered 'adventure' bikes?
dunno what the GT grade carbon counts as but looks like a good ride..
have you considered 'adventure' bikes?
dunno what the GT grade carbon counts as but looks like a good ride..
Post edited at 15:01
In reply to cb294:
With respect, this is a bit of a big fat red herring, I'm afraid. There are just too many variables at play here to be able to say "I had a steel road bike and it failed so steel must a shorter life than my alloy one which hasn't".
What it is possible to say is that with the correct tube design steel frames can have an infinite fatigue life. This is not possible with aluminium alloy, which will fatigue at some point, whatever the magnitude of stresses. This is a material property and independent of the loads, tube diameter, wall thickness, geometry etc. While there are exceptions to any rule, this is a pretty good rule of thumb. It is the reason why aluminium frames generally use oversized tubes - to get the stresses down to a low enough level for the fatigue life to be acceptable.
Titanium does have a high fatigue resistance as a material, but comes at a price (I don't mean £££.s): It is much more difficult to weld than steel is to weld/ braze. So there are many titanium frames around which have the potential to be very durable but are let down by the quality of the welding. If you want a bag of lightweight tubes to take with you to your grave then titanium is your answer...If you want a bike frame then... Perhaps. Or perhaps not.
With respect, this is a bit of a big fat red herring, I'm afraid. There are just too many variables at play here to be able to say "I had a steel road bike and it failed so steel must a shorter life than my alloy one which hasn't".
What it is possible to say is that with the correct tube design steel frames can have an infinite fatigue life. This is not possible with aluminium alloy, which will fatigue at some point, whatever the magnitude of stresses. This is a material property and independent of the loads, tube diameter, wall thickness, geometry etc. While there are exceptions to any rule, this is a pretty good rule of thumb. It is the reason why aluminium frames generally use oversized tubes - to get the stresses down to a low enough level for the fatigue life to be acceptable.
Titanium does have a high fatigue resistance as a material, but comes at a price (I don't mean £££.s): It is much more difficult to weld than steel is to weld/ braze. So there are many titanium frames around which have the potential to be very durable but are let down by the quality of the welding. If you want a bag of lightweight tubes to take with you to your grave then titanium is your answer...If you want a bike frame then... Perhaps. Or perhaps not.
1
In reply to GraB:
Agree completely, just wanted to point out that "steel is forever" is not necessarily true, and hence wbo´s post was not as ridiculous as made out in subsequent posts.
CB
Agree completely, just wanted to point out that "steel is forever" is not necessarily true, and hence wbo´s post was not as ridiculous as made out in subsequent posts.
CB
In reply to cb294:
Fair enough. Steel definitely ain't forever by default. But it probably has better potential than anything else. Maybe carbon is up there too, but the real world of dirt, grime and knocks means its just a bit theoretical.
I'm wondering why your BBs went soft? Did they crack ? Was there anything visible?
The one thing that kind of blows all the arguments about which material to go for apart is the potential for much better, more optimised design these days. A steel frame from the 60s / 70s might well last for 100 years but its hard to compare it with an Al alloy frame from today. Steel might me more durable in itself but we can optimise design today in a way it just wasn't possible 40 years ago. An aluminium alloy frame well designed and made is likely to last for a very long time indeed. Good design is actually way more important than the material itself, whatever it is.
Fair enough. Steel definitely ain't forever by default. But it probably has better potential than anything else. Maybe carbon is up there too, but the real world of dirt, grime and knocks means its just a bit theoretical.
I'm wondering why your BBs went soft? Did they crack ? Was there anything visible?
The one thing that kind of blows all the arguments about which material to go for apart is the potential for much better, more optimised design these days. A steel frame from the 60s / 70s might well last for 100 years but its hard to compare it with an Al alloy frame from today. Steel might me more durable in itself but we can optimise design today in a way it just wasn't possible 40 years ago. An aluminium alloy frame well designed and made is likely to last for a very long time indeed. Good design is actually way more important than the material itself, whatever it is.
Post edited at 15:31
In reply to GraB:
Don´t get me wrong, I love Italian steel frames! The two that died were rather light ones made by Pinarello from (I think) Dedacciai tubes. There was nothing really visible, except that pushing the pedals down hard just deformed the frame above the bottom bracket rather than accelerating the bike, which became progressively worse.
Might have been the soldering, but then I would have expected to see cracks which I did not, at least not from outside.
Quite likely the frames were just too flimsy for the 90 odd kg I had back then. I have no such problems with the ultra stiff Moser steel frame I ride since 1995, but then again it is one price class above the Pinarellos, and also has steel flanges spreading out from the seat tube to the edges of the BB.
CB
Don´t get me wrong, I love Italian steel frames! The two that died were rather light ones made by Pinarello from (I think) Dedacciai tubes. There was nothing really visible, except that pushing the pedals down hard just deformed the frame above the bottom bracket rather than accelerating the bike, which became progressively worse.
Might have been the soldering, but then I would have expected to see cracks which I did not, at least not from outside.
Quite likely the frames were just too flimsy for the 90 odd kg I had back then. I have no such problems with the ultra stiff Moser steel frame I ride since 1995, but then again it is one price class above the Pinarellos, and also has steel flanges spreading out from the seat tube to the edges of the BB.
CB
In reply to Lynsety:
Happy to see some fuss at the cost of some personal pride.... Fwiw the two stel frames i have are a Bontrager Racelite and a Privateer so i am very aware how long they can last but the Racelite is getting pretty floppy round the BB and i dont like to ride it so often now.
The majority of ti failures I've seen have grows from a weld. With Al I've knows people , seen them drop the bike and dent it, and about later the thing starts to split. Al is pretty soft. Id ride a dented steel frame , i wouldn't ride dented Al
Happy to see some fuss at the cost of some personal pride.... Fwiw the two stel frames i have are a Bontrager Racelite and a Privateer so i am very aware how long they can last but the Racelite is getting pretty floppy round the BB and i dont like to ride it so often now.
The majority of ti failures I've seen have grows from a weld. With Al I've knows people , seen them drop the bike and dent it, and about later the thing starts to split. Al is pretty soft. Id ride a dented steel frame , i wouldn't ride dented Al
In reply to Lynsety:
Having a relative from an engineering background, who later branched into carbon fibre and rubber after working in computing how metals behave and crack, he once mentioned that a problem with carbon is how difficult it is to tell if it is still safe after an impact compared to something made from metal. Also carbon fibre strength can quite dependant on which axis force is being placed on something made from it (though this can apply to all materials in principle).
The most robustly easily repairable material would probably be steel if you bought something designed and built with a multipurpose use in mind, because it will have been made tough enough to start with, and any frame builder could repair a steel frame should you ever need it to be. Or nearly any, with some knowing more about working with certain tube types, and Mercian Cycles not being willing/able to help somebody I read about with a Columbus frame.
A steel frame wouldn't be idea for racing 'cross though, since it's generally the heaviest material for a given strength in bike frames, with strength not being quite the same as robustness against knocks, and the ability to judge the soundness of a frame/tube after a crash.
I know there's some pro racing teams who prefer to use alu because of it being easier to tell if something is still okay after a crash, and they think it can withstand the rough and tumble of tour life more easily.
In terms of carbon footprint on manufacturing, it goes, steel, alu, carbon fibre, and then titanium, but the life time of the frame is a factor too.
Having a relative from an engineering background, who later branched into carbon fibre and rubber after working in computing how metals behave and crack, he once mentioned that a problem with carbon is how difficult it is to tell if it is still safe after an impact compared to something made from metal. Also carbon fibre strength can quite dependant on which axis force is being placed on something made from it (though this can apply to all materials in principle).
The most robustly easily repairable material would probably be steel if you bought something designed and built with a multipurpose use in mind, because it will have been made tough enough to start with, and any frame builder could repair a steel frame should you ever need it to be. Or nearly any, with some knowing more about working with certain tube types, and Mercian Cycles not being willing/able to help somebody I read about with a Columbus frame.
A steel frame wouldn't be idea for racing 'cross though, since it's generally the heaviest material for a given strength in bike frames, with strength not being quite the same as robustness against knocks, and the ability to judge the soundness of a frame/tube after a crash.
I know there's some pro racing teams who prefer to use alu because of it being easier to tell if something is still okay after a crash, and they think it can withstand the rough and tumble of tour life more easily.
In terms of carbon footprint on manufacturing, it goes, steel, alu, carbon fibre, and then titanium, but the life time of the frame is a factor too.
Post edited at 00:17
Okay, thanks everyone. I think I'll knock carbon on the head then and go for a steel or aluminium one.
Thanks for all your replies
Lynsey.
Thanks for all your replies
Lynsey.
In reply to Lynsety:
I've recently got myself a cotic escapade. I can honestly say its the most fun bike I've owned by far. I've got it set up as 1x10 with a 40 ring and thats great for commuting. I can swap it out for a smaller ring for offroad rides and I have it set up with Mechanical discs which eventually I'll swap for Hydraulics when I get the cash. Really can't recommend it enough. I have no idea about how it would compare to the arkroses, but so far I've been riding probably 50% off road and i's super capable, very steady at speed over rough ground due to the slack head tube angle. So it's not as sprightly on road but it's not bad either. I think the key with it is that it's immensley versatile.
I've recently got myself a cotic escapade. I can honestly say its the most fun bike I've owned by far. I've got it set up as 1x10 with a 40 ring and thats great for commuting. I can swap it out for a smaller ring for offroad rides and I have it set up with Mechanical discs which eventually I'll swap for Hydraulics when I get the cash. Really can't recommend it enough. I have no idea about how it would compare to the arkroses, but so far I've been riding probably 50% off road and i's super capable, very steady at speed over rough ground due to the slack head tube angle. So it's not as sprightly on road but it's not bad either. I think the key with it is that it's immensley versatile.
1
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...