Steel vs. All Carbon OCLV

[ace007]

I'm considering purchasing a Trek 5200 OCLV due to the great reviews that the riders who have them have provided. I'm also considering a CIII. According to OCLV riders, they are very comfortable and responsive when climbing and sprinting as well as providing long term comfort for long training rides and/or centuries. Can anyone tell me how the CIII's respond vs. the OCLV? I know they are different frame materials and may feel different. I also know that Trek does not make custom frames as does Serotta which may make a difference in ride quality. Thanks for the help.

[bostondrunk]

Carbon is a great choice, but I would look at a Calfee Luna or Tetra Pro (depending on your budget) way before I would look at a Trek. If money isn't a concern, then also look at Parlee/Hampsten, as well as the new Specialized carbon frames.

[va rider]

Ace -

What kind of riding will you do with the bike? Racer, club racer, hard core enthusiast, rec rider, commuter??

Buy a bike that fits. If not, you will be miserable and not ride it.

I have a CIII and love it. It is smooth, acclerates quickly and handles like it is on rails. OTOH, it is not as light as CF (frame =~ 4 lbs).

As to CF, there a number of hard core riders/racers on this forum that swear by it. Especially the higher end CF frames mentioned by BD. If you are going to race, CF is an excellent choice. The CF frames that I have ridden (none of which are mentioned by BD), including the trek, seem like they deadened the road a little too much.

Do what I did, you should be able to test ride 'em both. And ride them back to back, if possible with the same wheels.

If you like the CF and have the dough, go with BD's suggestions. I have never heard of anybody being dissapointed in any of those frames.

Good luck.

[Len J]

I'm considering purchasing a Trek 5200 OCLV due to the great reviews that the riders who have them have provided. I'm also considering a CIII. According to OCLV riders, they are very comfortable and responsive when climbing and sprinting as well as providing long term comfort for long training rides and/or centuries. Can anyone tell me how the CIII's respond vs. the OCLV? I know they are different frame materials and may feel different. I also know that Trek does not make custom frames as does Serotta which may make a difference in ride quality. Thanks for the help.

They have a very unique fit.

I had a 5500 and the ride was very dead but very smooth and comfortable for 6 + Hour rides. They are very light and very stiff in the drivetrain. The down side (for me) is their fit.

If you compare the Trek Geometry to a standard "Square" geometry (You know 56 X 56, 73 STA etc) the Treks have a seat tube that is significantly shorter than the Top tube and a proportionatly shorter Head tube. In the case of the 56, the C to C measurement of the St is 52 or 4 cm shorter than square. This means (because it has a flat TT the headtube is shorter by the same 4 cm. What this means for me (a realitivly normally proportioned individual) is that I either have to ride with a dramatic drop to the bars, or i need to use some combination of spacers/riser stems to get the bars correct. Comparing the Trek to a normal frame, I would need to bridge an additional 4 cm to get the bars in the same place. Even Lance uses 2 cm of spacers. Look around at the trek OCLV's on the raod and notice the amount of spacers. For some people (short legs/Long torsos or those that like a dramatic drop to the bars, the Trek works great. Otherwise, there are better bikes (fit wise) out there.

It is a great bike for the price if it fits.

Len

[Dekonick]

Calfe is supposed to be sweet.

Orbea is also a good choice for the $$ from what I hear. I know several who ride and love them.

Personally, I dont like CF (but I havent ridden it in >10 years) but do love steel. Ti is nice too but pricey.


I still ride my steel steeds and will continue to do so.

[flydhest]

Ace,

Check your private messages . . .

[Litespeeder]

Fit is arguably the most important factor when selecting a frame. If the bike fits you perfectly then you will ride longer and more often and perhaps even get better power transfer. IMO, what makes Serottas so advantageous is their fitting process. Serotta will build a bike for you that will be specifically designed around your body measurements. As mentioned earlier, the OCLVs have a rather unique geometry that may or may not work for you.

You first need to get measured by a Serotta fit expert or another comprehensive fitting process. This will be useful in determining if the OCLV geometry will work for you. As with any off the rack bike, you are taking a risk with the frame geometry.

If you do go with carbon and if the OCLV geometry fits you then it would be a great choice. I disagree that calfee or obera are better choices when it comes to carbon. The OCLVs are high performance bikes that are specifically designed for racing. When it comes to carbon, the OCLVs are at the top of the heap. Also consider a Parlee Z1 if you have the money. They are one of the few frame builders who will actually custom build carbon frames.

:bike:

[jeffg]

look into your budget and think what you want from a frame. Is frame weight of overwhelming importance (it should likely not be)? What type of riding do you do? I find Calfee geos too crit oriented for my tastes. I would rather have an OCLV. In turn, I would rather have a custom CIII than an OCLV due to fit/feel issues.

If you are going carbon, I would recommend a Parlee (or, better yet, a Hampsten/Parlee). I have a custom Z1, but the new Z2 (stock, but less pricey) would also fit me quite well. You have to get fitted and then test some bikes. It's your money and your a$$ in the saddle ... ;)

[EPOJoe]

Both are great bikes, with differing strengths. As far as CF goes, while there are brands (mentioned above) that may be made with more attention to detail in the finishing, IMHO there’s nothing that beats an OCLV when it comes to pushing the limit on hard climbs, sprints and fast pace lines. I’ve never felt that my OCLV had a dead ride; it’s different, but once you get used to it, it’s a smooth, comfortable ride. The OCLV outperforms my Legend and my bro’s CSI in most performance oriented situations. Why do I still ride the Legend? Why does my bro still take out the CSI? I guess it has something to do with growing up during a time when riding a bike meant having a metal frame underneath you. For all the performance benefits of the OCLV, when I ride it, I feel more like I’m using a disposable tool rather than riding a bike. So for me it’s a toss up between what’s more important; performance or the joy of riding what my dated mind perceives as a “real” bike.

[Dekonick]

If it aint for racing - its gotta be steel or ti. Comfot and road feel rules! (so I say as I ride on my %#^ specialized rock hard ADillo's...)

[ace007]

Thank you all for the advice. To answer one of the questions from above, I am mostly going to be doing non-competitive fitness, centuries, long training rides etc. I have an appt. to get fit next Tuesday and am looking forward to it just to see what geometry works best for me.

I am a tall rider at 6'2 with a long inseam yet an average length torso. My 63cm Cannondale fits me vertically but is too long on the top even with a 9cm stem. Trek's geometry is somewhat more compact than that of a stock Cannondale.

It sounds like the CIII is an excellent bike and that in choosing a bike, I shouldn't put overall bike weight as the number one priority. The CIII users say that it accelerates and climbs well and feels awesome. Does anyone know approximately how much a complete CIII would weigh compared to an OCLV or a Cannondale with the same components, wheels? I know it would be heavier but according to the CIII riders on this forum, the weight difference doesn't seem to be significant.

Thank you again for all of your advice. I don't want to fall victim to marketing hype in my purchase. :)

[Dekonick]

to be honest, the frame wt cant be that much different. Most of the wt in a bike is the rider... then the 'ponents you put onto the frame (inc wheels)

My guess would be that most of us have bikes that weigh in the 17 +/- pound range. The frame would be - what - a few lbs at most?

I dont know how much but my entire Ti bike is only a few lbs lighter than my early 90's steel.

The Ti weighs just under 18 lbs, with a brooks saddle - and none of my components are that lt. wt. (32 spoke wheels, chorus, no carbon 'cept seat post... etc...)

the same bike could shave a pound or 3 with different wheels, tires, bar, saddle, pedals, etc...

Think there was a thread about this a month or 2 ago - search the forum and see.

[vaxn8r]

IMHO frame weight does matter if you are competitive. It seems every one with a steel bike says it doesn't matter and everyone with a light weight aluminum or CF bike says it does matter. I think you'll find the camps are split between people who race and those who don't.

I also am of the strong opinion that there are inherent advantages to CF and frame efficiency (climbing and accelerating) is a big one. Certain bikes are faster no question. Maybe that's not important to you if you don't race. Then by all means, get the bike you lust after and the one that fits best because that's the one you'll ride.

Finally, it's not just a coincidence or a fad that pro racers don't race on steel. Don't get me wrong, steel bikes ride great and feel great too. You just need to decide why you're buying your bike.