[jeepster93]

The 105 has been called the best grupo that Shimano makes...

The problem is...weight.
These components makers are on a race to see who can make the lightest components available.
Somewhere along the line, the bike makers assumed that us bike riders are interested in sacrificing durability for weight. They will weaken a part for a 5% weight saving.

I do not race the tour. No need for super light, thin, compromised, parts on my bike.
Saying that...I DID buy a light weight bike.
It would be easier for me to loose 5 pounds over getting ti rails on my saddle(a couple of ounces). Prolly make us(the bike and me) faster overall too.

[froze]

Originally Posted by jeepster93

The 105 has been called the best grupo that Shimano makes...

The problem is...weight.
These components makers are on a race to see who can make the lightest components available.
Somewhere along the line, the bike makers assumed that us bike riders are interested in sacrificing durability for weight. They will weaken a part for a 5% weight saving.

I do not race the tour. No need for super light, thin, compromised, parts on my bike.
Saying that...I DID buy a light weight bike.
It would be easier for me to loose 5 pounds over getting ti rails on my saddle(a couple of ounces). Prolly make us(the bike and me) faster overall too.

I agree about the 105 group. But supposedly from early reports of the new 105 group from other forums that their having problems. I don't own a new 105 group so I cannot report about such things first hand. But I know guys who race on the older versions of 105 and they just work and keep working.

I also agree that component manufactures are not listening to riders. They somehow think we're all wanting to be Lance Armstrong so make the lightest racing components you can because we don't care if they break! There was a period of time when racing components where lighter then non racing but they were also the most durable. Some how that all changed.

[CLTBiker]

Originally Posted by chaco24

I would prefer to get something that will last me for quite some time, I'm not the lightest cyclist to begin with so weight savings isn't really a factor, however, ride quality is. I'm more into long distance/endurance riding than racing (with the exception of the aforementioned sprint tri's I plan on getting into). I'm looking at Motobecane's Titanium bikes, or Kestrels Talon & I torn between the two.

Given what you've said, go ti. Another minus on CF is that over time, the carbon weave loosens. So eventually, the ride quality changes, and it becomes in a sense more "marshmallowy" like. It's not something you'd distinctly notice, unless you had your exact same bike from T-3 years ago and compared the rides.

You get some bike ideas here - Road Bike Buying Guide - for what's out there in ti and CF right now. Good luck!

[froze]

Originally Posted by CLTBiker

Given what you've said, go ti. Another minus on CF is that over time, the carbon weave loosens. So eventually, the ride quality changes, and it becomes in a sense more "marshmallowy" like. It's not something you'd distinctly notice, unless you had your exact same bike from T-3 years ago and compared the rides.

You get some bike ideas here - Road Bike Buying Guide - for what's out there in ti and CF right now. Good luck!

Interesting about CF carbon weave loosens over time. How long does that take? I've never heard of that even though I'm not a big fan of CF. I have a friend that has a 2001 CF Trek and he still rides his and loves it, I've seen even older CF frames for sale on the internet. I would assume that the loosening effect never stops, does it just keep getting worse as time goes by? What happens 30 years or more down the road? Do you have any sites that prove this loosening effect?

[rich88]

All I know is I love my Carbon frame.

[retromike3]

instead of spending the money on a lighter bike I would spend it on some coaching. See if you can find somebody to help you train better or find a better riding position (most of the energy you spend is moving the air around your body.) or maybe what I need, a better diet. Back when I was doing retail I would say the best way to save a thousand dollars was to go to the bathroom before you get on your bike. You can't buy a faster bike, the bike will just sit there without you.

mike

[froze]

Originally Posted by retromike3

instead of spending the money on a lighter bike I would spend it on some coaching. See if you can find somebody to help you train better or find a better riding position (most of the energy you spend is moving the air around your body.) or maybe what I need, a better diet. Back when I was doing retail I would say the best way to save a thousand dollars was to go to the bathroom before you get on your bike. You can't buy a faster bike, the bike will just sit there without you.

mike

Go to the bathroom before you bike? I aways do the deed right after breakfast so that's not a problem, but how much does human waste weigh? I've weighed myself before and after and the scale didn't change...of course I don't have one of those pro doc jobs either.

[retromike3]

I was being facetious, but I have found that when you get up to the more expensive bikes the difference in weight gets less and less and the amount of cash you have to lay out get geometrically higher.

A "good" carbon fiber road bike can start at two grand and go up to nine or more (I was looking at the specs in Road Bike Action.) The amount of time you spend on conditioning to me has more to do than the weight of the bike(within limits)

One of my favorite stories I like to tell it the former captain of the team I used to sponsor was out in Bend Oregon on his brand new Derosa race bike and he got dropped by a girl on a mountain bike with a cast on her arm. Turns out she was on the U.S. Olympic team and she broke her arm so all she could ride was mountain bike.

mike

[froze]

Performance gains from making bikes lighter do cost more and more for less and less weight loss. The same thing is true with attempting to get more power out of an engine-you spend more and more for less and less horsepower gain.

On a bike it is all about the engine, you could have the lightest bike in the world and spent a huge sum for it all only to get embarrassed by someone either dramatically older or younger then you on a far heavier and cheaper bike. Then what does the rich fool do? Try to lighten the bike up further? It's a losers game.

I use to race 25 years ago at a cat 3 level and I didn't have the lightest or the most expensive bike on the circuit, in fact my bikes were on the lower end of the scale from others that I race with or against, and I could still win races...not all of course, but my share. I still have my last bike I used for racing, a 84 Trek 660 with all Suntour Superbe components...just to show you what I had, nothing fancy.

[PhotoJoe]

Originally Posted by froze

If BD is going to do the SRAM RED for $1999 then I will probably go with that one instead of Ultegra. Maybe BD is dropping the Shimano line to keep the price point of the completed TI frame lower.

But I do have a question about the Red and the Force. The Red being a racing group, thus with lighter components, would the Force be more dependable?

Motobecane LeChampion Ti Inferno is on their website. Red at $2600. Too bad it's out of my price range. And they REALLY should have used frame the from from the DA Ti.