If you were building a “go fast” metal road bike...

[Clean39T]

Originally Posted by ultraman6970

As for the request, now a days you can get a high end EM for 500 bucks for the frame, put any group in it and pick your choice of 23 - 27 mm tires.

Many times no matter the tubing, just go with something that by default will go fast, like EM's and De rosas for example.

And by "go fast" you mean they are meant to be ridden with low front ends and long stems, and are responsive to inputs so you can steer them precisely?

I would love to see the market create a bike that steers and handles and positions you on the machine like an aggressive race bike, with aero-optimized tires/wheels in the 26c range, but has the gizmos and aero advantage of a "Domane" type bike. To my knowledge that bike still doesn't exist and is too complex for a custom builder to pull off - the shaping required and the complexity of the suspension gizmos. And before anyone says "just run wider tires" -- there are drawbacks to wide tires in terms of handling, bounce, aero, and sluggishness when climbing. To me the ultimate race bike uses technology to get you comfort and has tires that are only as wide as needed to support the rider, maintain traction, and take care of hysteresis losses - and that's probably 25s on fat rims for most surfaces.

[Hilltopperny]

I am awaiting my go fast metal frameset right now. It is titanium, but steel or aluminum would have worked as well. I am likely just going to parts bin it with some miscellaneous Campagnolo drivetrain bits and a set of alloy wheels for now.
A) Alchemy Eros Ti
B) 27mm Challenge Paris Roubaix
C) 46/36 Campagnolo carbon cx with 11-32 cassette
D) Rim brakes

I may change things up a bit with a different set of wheels, but for now that is the plan. Contemplating some carbon mid depth wheels, but honestly haven't ever really gotten along with rim brake carbon wheels in the past at 200+lbs.

[XXtwindad]

Originally Posted by fiamme red

Yes, if you're trying to keep up with a fast group that gearing is totally absurd. You want a tight cassette, with one-tooth jumps between cogs. And if you think that you need a 50 x 9 or 50 x 10, you need to learn how to spin, not mash.

On rollers, with small descents, climbs, and flats in between, I’ve found I’ve wanted more top end than a compact. Perhaps a 52/36 with an 11-36 would work better. I’ve ordered the 9-36, but not tried it yet. You might very well be right. I will know in due time. Regardless, that is one facet of my post, and I’d rather not take up “all the oxygen in the room” with it.

[robt57]

Originally Posted by Clean39T

I would love to see the market create a bike that steers and handles and positions you on the machine like an aggressive race bike, with aero-optimized tires/wheels in the 26c rang

Honestly, you saw me on it when we last saw each other. I just had no aero wheels on..

[KarlC]

Originally Posted by Clean39T

First, as others said, is to be in good enough shape to assume a fast position on a bike - getting low and forward will do more for your aero position and conversion of power to speed than wheels or a frame.

Second, learn how to ride efficiently in a group - maybe that's first - so many Wattz get lost with inefficient riding. This is everything from sag climbing, to reading when things will string out and bunch up, how to stay in a wheel when it matters, etc.

Third, matching the compliance and handling of your tires, wheels, and frame to the terrain and surfaces you ride most frequently. If you have smooth pavement, no climbs and no wind, that's a different equation to solve than chip-seal, lots of climbs and lots of side-winds. If you have mix, you'll have to accept some tradeoffs, and probably land in the middle.

Fourth, look at aero gains from your clothing, helmet, shoes - and then wheels, handlebars, and frame.

Fifth, decide how much the marginal gains are worth to you relative to the dollar investment.

My choice?

An oversized steel frameset with a good fork, long stem, shorter TT, low front end, 25c tires, wider rims, mix of wheels for windy/calm or dry/wet days, tight kit, and tight gear range with a bailout for the inevitable (36/52 and 11/29).

That a well thought out post and right on point !

.

[prototoast]

Originally Posted by Clean39T

And by "go fast" you mean they are meant to be ridden with low front ends and long stems, and are responsive to inputs so you can steer them precisely?

I would love to see the market create a bike that steers and handles and positions you on the machine like an aggressive race bike, with aero-optimized tires/wheels in the 26c range, but has the gizmos and aero advantage of a "Domane" type bike. To my knowledge that bike still doesn't exist and is too complex for a custom builder to pull off - the shaping required and the complexity of the suspension gizmos. And before anyone says "just run wider tires" -- there are drawbacks to wide tires in terms of handling, bounce, aero, and sluggishness when climbing. To me the ultimate race bike uses technology to get you comfort and has tires that are only as wide as needed to support the rider, maintain traction, and take care of hysteresis losses - and that's probably 25s on fat rims for most surfaces.

Didn't Trek add the Isospeed coupler into the new Madone? Is there something you're looking for the Madone doesn't have?

[dbnm]

A) titanium
B) 30c
C) 46-33 up front and 10-36 in the rear (SRAM Force AXS)
D) disc


I would have Alchemy or Mosaic make it and go full on weightweenie.

[Clean39T]

Originally Posted by robt57

Honestly, you saw me on it when we last saw each other. I just had no aero wheels on..

The geometry on the Domane Classics is weird though - it's raked out and almost too long/low.. And only the back has the gizmo. Not that it's a bad bike, I just think there's more that can be done at this point if we're talking achieving absolute perfection.

I think the latest Dogma FS may be perfect. Too bad it's like $14K+ - ha ha.

https://pinarello.com/en-us/bikes/dogma-fs

[Clean39T]

Originally Posted by prototoast

Didn't Trek add the Isospeed coupler into the new Madone? Is there something you're looking for the Madone doesn't have?

Ideally it would not say Trek is giant 6" letters on the downtube - ha ha..

Is the IsoSpeed up front now too? I'd have to look at the geo charts and see what the H1.5 geometry does to the stack/reach ratio. I do like that they've gone to T47 BBs now (though maybe not in the Madone yet?).

[vincenz]

Originally Posted by prototoast

Didn't Trek add the Isospeed coupler into the new Madone? Is there something you're looking for the Madone doesn't have?

Hm, what about light weight? $13,000 for an 18 lbs road bike is a non-starter for me.

Originally Posted by Clean39T

Ideally it would not say Trek is giant 6" letters on the downtube - ha ha..

Trek figured astronauts could use a different view than the Great Pyramids of Giza..

[teleguy57]

Originally Posted by Andy sti

My steel Alliance does that perfectly now. Erik’s geometry and lower BB centers the rider so well that you can just rip through stuff and rail downhills. I’m expecting my new Ti Alliance to do the same. I’m going with rim brake though.

I tilted slightly to the all-road side of things in ti. Chose discs as I'm a bigger guy and I have had some times in the mountains where my hands wanted more braking help. Ti was, well, just because. I believe steel would have been different but equally good.

Go fast(er) tubular config:


And with 35mm tubeless rougher-stuff config:

[mt2u77]

Material: doesn't matter

Tire Width: 25 - 28 mm

Gearing: enough low end so you can keep a reasonable cadence on the climbs-- this will help you conserve your matches for the end of a long ride.

Brakes: Depends. Are you planning to ride in all conditions, or just bluebird days? I've been on wet roads with carbon rim brakes, and half the group is on discs-- the mismatch in braking meant I wasn't comfortable holding a wheel as closely as I normally would. The loss in drafting efficiency is a major factor if you're on the edge of your capability to hang on.

Finally, what kind of group are we talking about-- are they actively "trying" to drop you? I don't enjoy those ride groups any more, but I've been in them. The single biggest factor, besides being fit and knowing how to ride efficiently in a group, is having a groupset that shifts really well. There will be attacks and gaps, and you have to be ready to go NOW.

[robt57]

Raked?

I know 1000 year old tech by today's standard. So insert a RSL Pro Endrance, or grab a Kopenburger if you want short version.

> 14k ha ha, even this Domonsterative was well over $10k in 2013. [x5% inflation for 7 years, 14k?] The Pino is well placed/price really.

It is a limo granted, counterpoints to no front ISO, the steerer flex is enough, especially with fat 31mm GP4k [28s really].
The thing is so stiff that the limo WB would only be a problem in a Crit race IMO. But the benifit bombing a descent with a curve and broken pave at the bottom is.. [pic your accentuating descriptive term].

Originally Posted by Clean39T

The geometry on the Domane Classics is weird though - it's raked out and almost too long/low.. And only the back has the gizmo. Not that it's a bad bike, I just think there's more that can be done at this point if we're talking achieving absolute perfection.

I think the latest Dogma FS may be perfect. Too bad it's like $14K+ - ha ha.

https://pinarello.com/en-us/bikes/dogma-fs

[FlashUNC]

Originally Posted by mt2u77

Material: doesn't matter

Tire Width: 25 - 28 mm

Gearing: enough low end so you can keep a reasonable cadence on the climbs-- this will help you conserve your matches for the end of a long ride.

Brakes: Depends. Are you planning to ride in all conditions, or just bluebird days? I've been on wet roads with carbon rim brakes, and half the group is on discs-- the mismatch in braking meant I wasn't comfortable holding a wheel as closely as I normally would. The loss in drafting efficiency is a major factor if you're on the edge of your capability to hang on.

Finally, what kind of group are we talking about-- are they actively "trying" to drop you? I don't enjoy those ride groups any more, but I've been in them. The single biggest factor, besides being fit and knowing how to ride efficiently in a group, is having a groupset that shifts really well. There will be attacks and gaps, and you have to be ready to go NOW.

Totally agreed. And do whatever you have to do to hang on, cuz if the guys at the front get the bit in their teeth and get it rolling, gonna be a mighty hard surge at the back. Everything else is picking the fly **** out of the pepper.

[mass_biker]

Originally Posted by XXtwindad

That could keep pace on a fast(er) group ride over terrain varying from smooth asphalt to really crappy roads with lots of climbing and descending ...

A) what material would you choose? Steel or Ti?
B) what tire width?
C) what gearing?
D) rim or discs?

My version of that question will be

A) a double oversized Columbus Spirit frame
B) 30c
C) 50/34 in front and a 9-36 in back
D) discs

I realize that “D” might engender all kinds of rehashed arguments, but I’m just interested in people’s opinions, not their opinions about other people’s choices. That gets kind of tired.

My choice -

A) alum (Spooky - thanks PL) - forgot how stiff/responsive al. can be!
B) 700x23 (on HED+ rims, wide enough for me) - actually went down from 25s
3) 52/36 with 11/28 (plenty for me ) - did a v. hilly century this past weekend just fine with this gearing
4) rims (familiarity) - keeping things simple for now - never seem to run out of brake FWIW