Ti, SIII...OCLV?

[TBLS]

Winter has been too long and I'm getting the itch to add to my bike collection....a Serotta CIII (steel), a Lightspeed classic (Yeah, I know it's not a Legend but it does a great job for me for the MI seasons)...and consider looking for a used Trek OCLV.

Anybody out there with a Ti/Steel/OCLV bike collection.....enough difference to add a bike or does the OCLV sit in the garage while you ride your other bikes?

Thanks

[Bruce K]

My son (now 16 - look out world) has a Trek 5200 OCLV.

One time, when he was away on vacation, I "stole" his Trek to compare to my Concours.

I was rather dissappointed with the ride. The bike felt rather "dead" to me. Not what I expected at all.

Maybe it was the junior gears (52-38 + 14-25) or the fact that my Concours was a 53X53 while the Trek was their standard 54, but the bike just did not excite me in any way.

I have never ridden a steel road bike for any length of time so I will leave that one for Sandy, dnovo, dbrk, et al.

I really enjoy my Concours, then I get on my Ottrott St and keep thinking it's time to send the Concours to a new home. In the end, I have too much heart, soul, and sweat invested in the Concours to part with it without being desperate.

BK

[JohnS]

Why not a Concours? It's much closer in price and better than a Classic. Go to Continental Bike Shop on John R.

[IXXI]

I rode a Trek 5500 for a couple season and loved it. (This in spite of decades of my bikie friends deriding "those p.o.s. plastic bikes.") I tried it, I like it-- a lot. I had no issues with 'deadness'-- it rode very smoothly, accelerated well, and let me enjoy a century ride that should've killed me based on my (lack of) conditioning.

Sold it to get my Legend ti. While I don't regret selling it, I do have fond memories of it.

Make sure it fits well and I bet you'll like it.

[TimD]

In the last two years I've had a '99 OCLV 5000, a Peg Marcelo (EOM 16.5, fillet welded), and a Legend Ti.

The Trek was the lightest. The Legend has the "best" ride, combining comfort, handling, stability, and stiffness. The Marcelo handles well and feels the stiffest, especially in the back, but is probably about the same as the Legend. It feels more "springy". The Trek felt very damped, the feeling some call "dead", but it was a nice ride overall. Several buddies have 5200s and love them. But my personal order of preference would be Serotta, Pegoretti, Trek.

The (62cm, e.g., big) Trek had a generic carbon fork (not branded an "Air Rail") with a threaded Al steerer. Flexibility in the fork, steerer, and head tube area, combined with a short-reach quill stem, compromised the handling, unfortunately. Above 40 MPH it was scary. I think this was specific to this frameset as the 5200s I've been on (all too small for me) felt a lot better. I've ridden the Marcelo downhill one-handed at 45 MPH while trying to extract a hornet from my jersey with no worries. I'd expect the Legend to be the same, or better.

I've since sold the Trek. I could have turned it into a winter bike, but I thought it deserved better :). In making a decision consider not just the frame but the entire bike - frame, fork, stem, wheels, and components - the D-A on one of my bikes shifts and (especially) trims noticeably better than the Ultegra on the other.

[Keith A]

TBLS,

Well I currently have a '03 5500 OCLV, Serotta CSi and Legend Ti. I have owned one of several OCLV's since '96 and as you might expect I enjoy the ride.

I just recently picked up the Legend Ti and haven't had the time to tweak it to my specs yet, so I only have a couple of short rides on this bike and really can't comment much on this one yet.

I personally really enjoy having different types of bikes to ride. Each one has something to appreciate compared to the other, which wouldn't be noticed if you were riding only one bike.

I love riding my CSi and spend all of my weekday rides on this machine. This fits me so well and rides like a dream. However, when Saturday rolls around and I go out with the local racer boys, I appreciate having the OCLV. To me this is a very comfortable bike as it smoothes out the payment quite well. It is also an excellent sprinter, which is a real plus when your trying to close the gap from a group trying to get away or trying to win the sprint over the top of the overpass.

As much as I love my CSi, it doesn't have the zing of the OCLV. So if the OCLV fits you, then I would say go for it. One interesting fit issue with the OCLV is the fact that the center of the bottom bracket is about 1 cm behind the junction of the seat & down tubes and this needs to be factored in when fitting the bike. This effectively makes the top tube longer on a bike that has a longish top tube already.

Let me know if you have any specific questions and I'd be happy to answer the for you. You can either PM or e-mail me (see my profile).

Cheers.
-Keith

[Chuck M]

I owned a Trek 5900, the 110 frame and Trek's best fork. I had the bike for about a year. At the same time, I also had my CSI. Both bikes were about the same size and fit me well. The 5900 was impressive - a very solid riding bike that handled well. It was quite a change from the 1992 5200 I got the first year Trek made the OCLV frame - a 'squishy' bike that I did not like at all.

The 5900 wasn't quite up to the CSI though. The CSI is a little more stable, a little more comfortable, and has that feel of a great steel bike. But the 5900 was less 'dead' than other carbon bikes. The CSI is also far better looking. But these were fairly close calls - except for the looks of course, the CSI is about the prettiest bike there is. That the 5900 was close to the CSI was remarkable -- the 5900 is after all a factory manufactured production bike. I sold the 5900 last fall and don't really miss it.

[EPOJoe]

I now own a Legend, two OCLV’s and have logged a lot of time on my bro’s CSI. IMHO, each of these bikes stands on its own merits, and if you don’t have one of each, there’s no way around it, you’re gonna be missing something. The CSI offers the kind of ride “feel” you can only get from a fine steel frame, the OCLV offers, in my estimation, unparalleled performance when it comes to climbing and sprinting, and the Legend rides like a nice compromise between the two. You can’t go wrong with any of them, so it’s more a matter of what you’re trying to achieve with the purchase.

[Saxon]

If people see EPOJoe and I on a ride, they must wonder what we're doing... Since he purchased the Legend, we take both my CSi and his Legend out for rides and jump off and change bikes every few miles or so. Great way to get the feel for the differences in the bikes (but you don't get very far)! I actually prefer the ride of the Legend to the CSI. It's got a much lighter feel under your legs, feels more performance oriented and I think it's "buttery". Joe disagrees and likes the ride of the CSi more. He thinks the CSI is smoother. Go figure. I also have a Trek 5500 and yes, while it's not as pretty as the Serottas, in my experience, it does substantially out perform them when it comes to ease of pacelining, sprinting and racing. The first thing Joe did when he got the Legend was to challenge my OCLV to a big uphill sprint. That was a mistake. The Serottas are no slouches, but the OCLV's, regardless of the feel, are outstanding performance bikes. I actually like the ride of my Trek, but then again I like the rides of the Serottas, too!

Sax

[MadRocketSci]

I have a '01 5200 and a '97 atlanta, and I've test ridden the Legend and Concours. The 5200 and atlanta are both nice bikes, but they feel different, have a little different geometries, and I use them for different purposes.

The atlanta is my first real steel bike, and you already know how those ride...i take it out for longer more chill rides, when I want to feel the road...

The OCLV is my racy/climbing bike. The geometry quirk with the bb has already been mentioned, but i can't help to think that they put it there for a reason...to get you in a more forward of the bb position. Kahuna (and I) seem to think it makes the bike feel 'faster' and more powerful, among other reasons. It's also light, stiff, and damped. Feels more like a "rubbery" ride than wooden, which probably only describes the ride over big bumps when the tubes flex beyond their damped limits. Completely different feel from steel, cuz the materials have different characteristics (spring vs. damper). Lastly, the 5200 descends very securely...no wobbles for me.

The feedback that each kind of bike gives is interesting. 5200 feels stiff and quiet...you pedal, you feel the frame move under you. For some reason, i don't feel any of that with Legend/concours. My legs are spinning, and the bike's moving, but the two actions feel only vaguely related to each other. Must be what they mean by "buttery". Atlanta is the in between....you can feel a little windup and delay when sprinting.

[vaxn8r]

How could I have possibly missed this thread?

First off, I don't have a Legend and never rode one. But I can compare OCLV to Atlanta, Cannondale and then Calfee Tetra Pro.

The Atlanta surprised me with it's stiffness. It's very comfortable yet it responds nicely to sprinting efforts. It's a superior frame compared to my old Merkx. But, that Merkx is a 753 (more noodley than I like..though it does handle wonderfully). I have yet to get my fit dialed in just right even after about 600 miles on it. As mentioned the OCLV puts you naturally further behind the BB which is where it feels good for me. I keep moving my seat back on the Atlanta to the point that I've got it back about as far as I can on the rails even with a setback (Thomson) seat post. I'm more of a masher than some, so spinners might be more comfortable with the more natural forward position relative to the BB on the Atlanta. I do not climb as well on the Atlanta. I'm fairly convinced this is partly weight penalty, perhaps the seat positioning thing. I do sprint great on it and short, high power efforts are rewarded. The frame is responsive. I love the classic looks and nice paint/lugs. It's a fun bike to ride. The steel fork makes the bike. No way would it be as special to me with a CF fork. To me that's just wrong for aesthetics and road feel.

Cannondale is plenty stiff yet the CAAD 7 is not harsh. It is not like CF at all. You can tell when you're on chip-seal. But it isn't bad at all, hardly noticeable until you then ride OCLV or Calfee. The Atlanta handles very nicely but the Cannondale is a Ferrari. Not unstable just really dialed in. Climbs and descends very nicely. Sprinting is rewarded immmediately. Slightly better than the Atlanta, maybe better than the OCLV and about equal to the Calfee. It's easy to see why these are so popular. Great performance at an even better price. All CDale road frames get the CAAD7. Price points are based on fork and components. I think that's cool that even at a low price you still get their best frame. Too bad there are so many of them, that's the only negative. For the money this has to be about the best performance bang for the buck there is. BTW, I did 70 hard miles on it last weekend and I felt like I could have stayed on it all day. This is not your grandfather's Cannondale.

OCLV (mine is a '97) with Air Rail fork. You have to have the Air Rail or newer. the older forks sucked! Very responsive. Comfortable. This was the best all-around bike I had ever ridden until I got the Tetra Pro. It is neutral handling. Not slow/not too fast. Doesn't handle as quick as the C-Dale but close to the Atlanta. It is not as vibration soaking as the Calfee nor quite as stiff. IMO Calfee is better than '97 OCLV as a carbon bike though I'm sure the newer OCLV's have been refined. The OCLV has the worst aesthetics of all these bikes, even the C-Dale. To me aesthetically it's the antithesis of the Atlanta, or Calfee, both with flawless finish. The Tetra has titanium drop outs, BB, etc. OCLV uses aluminum parts which need to be kept isolated from carbon, potentially a problem, though so far, not for mine in 7 years and about 27k miles. The Calfee soaks up rough stuff a bit better than OCLV, feels like you're riding on carpet yet it's a rocket under power. Some people say they are too quick handling. I disagree but I like my bikes to handle on the fast side. I can easily ride no hands but not at 40mph downhill like DBRK did on Tom's Vanilla. No way is it stable like that. I do think lighter bikes in general don't descend as well as heavier bikes. The Atlanta descends so supremely confidently but it's also 4 lbs heavier. Still, the Tetra descends just fine for me (though I'm 180 lbs---no light weight). This is the best climbing bike I have ever ridden. Between (low) weight, perfect fit, and incredible stiffness this thing is a (comfortable) rocket! As of today, to me----psuedo racer---no time for the real thing, the Calfee is the best of all worlds---for my 50-80 mile hard paced group rides.

I have to say I love them all for different reasons. Tough choice deciding which one got the fenders but the OCLV got 'em. I think a good choice. Not worried about rust or wrecking it's finish and it still gets lots of (rain) rides out here in Oregon.

[djg]

It's a good bike in many regards, and for a short while I thought it was a really cool thing. In the end, a CT1 killed it for me. Once I got settled in on a CT1, I found that I just didn't ride the Trek anymore. I really much preferred both the handling and the feel of the Nag. So I sold the Trek. YMMV.

One thing to note with the OCLVs is that the fit isn't right for everyone. They do not offer 1 cm size increments, which is one limitiation. And if you size them by the seat tube c-c or c-t (rather than the nominal size), they have very long top tubes--or at least they do in mid-sized ranges. If you size them by the top tube (or the seat tube), they have short head tubes. My "56" cm Trek was really a 52, measured c-c, but had a 56 cm top tube and a very short head tube. That works great for some folks, and can be made to work for many. At the same time, it's really not for everyone and it's a fair jump in several regards to the next size, either up or down, in Trek's line.

[Serotta PETE]

All 3 will have a different ride, as they should ( steel, ti, carbon) It is somewhat like saying which is better "an apple" or "an orange" (Define better for yourself first)

It is important that you try all 3.

Even if they are all "the same size" they are different in terms of TT length, and possible fork response. This is not to say one is better or worse.

Yes, I am trying to stay away from saying which one is "best" for you first have to define what "best" means to you. While I have a preference, it is just that and will have nothing to do with your comfort or speed on the bike you chose.

Remember "fit fit fit" is the most important. Secondly what is your preference in terms of looks, ride style, etc....

Lastly, your budget will have soome bearing of selection. (The 3 of them should have different price points with OCLV being cheapest)


Wish there was a correct "1" answer.... PETE