Looking at picking up my first road bike

Considering that the Z6 has mostly Tiagra components (according to the website), I'd say that the $1600 msrp for the thing is ABSOLUTELY CRAZY.

I'm you're age 22, and I understand what it's like to be on a budget. When I got my first (and only) road bike 7 years ago, you could get a Trek 1200 with full Tiagra components for $750. The inflation on these bikes has been ridiculous!

Anyways, if you're maybe (even a slight maybe) interested in racing, I would recommend that you go with 105 or higher. If you get that Tiagra bike and then decide a couple of years later that you wanna race, you'll regret blowing that $1600 on Tiagra.

Then again, the F5 seems to be equipped with mostly 105 stuff at ~$2000, which I think is also pricey for 105, as you can get full Ultegra/Force for not that much more. You should probably look for closeouts from your dealer. Most of the stuff that's not a closeout is probably a waste of your money. Anyways, for racing I would say 105 at a minimum.

It might be worth your while to get a bike from the previous year that a dealer really needs to get rid of for a much lower price...it also won't be much better than the next year's bike. One thing to consider is that every now and then evil corporations like Shimano tend to come out with different compatibility standards and screw over everyone who bought a bike the previous year, so keep that in mind.

genedan said:

Considering that the Z6 has mostly Tiagra components (according to the website), I'd say that the $1600 msrp for the thing is ABSOLUTELY CRAZY.

I'm you're age 22, and I understand what it's like to be on a budget. When I got my first (and only) road bike 7 years ago, you could get a Trek 1200 with full Tiagra components for $750. The inflation on these bikes has been ridiculous!

Anyways, if you're maybe (even a slight maybe) interested in racing, I would recommend that you go with 105 or higher. If you get that Tiagra bike and then decide a couple of years later that you wanna race, you'll regret blowing that $1600 on Tiagra.

Then again, the F5 seems to be equipped with mostly 105 stuff at ~$2000, which I think is also pricey for 105, as you can get full Ultegra/Force for not that much more. You should probably look for closeouts from your dealer. Most of the stuff that's not a closeout is probably a waste of your money. Anyways, for racing I would say 105 at a minimum.

It might be worth your while to get a bike from the previous year that a dealer really needs to get rid of for a much lower price...it also won't be much better than the next year's bike. One thing to consider is that every now and then evil corporations like Shimano tend to come out with different compatibility standards and screw over everyone who bought a bike the previous year, so keep that in mind.

Yes but we're also talking about a complete carbon frame, not aluminum as in the Trek's. A comparable trek with 400-600 more, at least. Am I missing something?

The Trek 4.5 is carbon + tiagra setup & 105 levers for about $2100.

my experience has been that the real low end groupsets don't really hold up well, and then most folks wind up upgrading, which gets really expensive. I also believe that the top-groups are really just for bling and weight savings and 99% of us would be fine on Ultegra/105, Chorus/Centaur, Force/Rival, etc.

I would look for 105 minimum if this is a long term endeavor.

Sounds like your choice will come down to low/entry level CF and upper level AL offerings from the companies you cite.

If the weight savings (which I think are fairly small, at least in the Trek line between their top AL bikes and entry level CF bikes) are important to you, or even if it's just the curb appeal of CF, I'd recommend you pursue it, because if you're like me and you feel like you compromised your desire, you might regret it down the road.

I chose AL with a reputable mid-level component set up, the 105. My primary focus continues to be fitness and enjoyment though, as opposed to any competition stuff.

Happy hunting--the bikes you're considering are really nice bikes.

Bill

rtnlsltn said:

Yes but we're also talking about a complete carbon frame, not aluminum as in the Trek's. A comparable trek with 400-600 more, at least. Am I missing something?

No, several manufacturers are spec'ing Tiagra/105 on entry-level carbon frames this year, like the Scott CR1 Comp.

Shimano upgraded Tiagra for 2009, so its only difference with 105 is a few grams and a 9-speed shifter in your right hand instead of 10. This may or may not be important to you.

Trek F-series frames are a pretty traditional race geometry, with nearly horizontal, somewhat long top tubes and short head tubes. I rode an F5 for two seasons and loved it. The Z frames are designed more for comfort, with shorter top tubes and longer head tubes. As comfort, ahem, endurance, frames go, I would choose it over a comparable Roubaix.

For the most part Felt F and Z frames are low on bullet-point count, the kind of details that the marketing geniuses like to talk about. On the other hand, the work is clearly evident in the ride.

Base your choice on which frame style suits you more. I lean towards the F5, but you're the guy who's going to ride it.

As hinted above, Felt makes some solid frames. They certainly are making a name for themselves as their market continues to expand.

I look at bike purchases like this: the fame is the most important part. Anything else about the bike can be changed at a relatively (to the frame cost) low cost. The frame will influence greatly the bike's comfort and fit, as well as handling. How do you choose which to buy?

1. Define a price range.
2. Buy what fits best.
3. Buy what makes think all sorts of nasty things and makes your grundle quiver.

Don't buy just because you're anxious to have a bike. As mentioned above, buyer's remorse is only slightly less bothersome than using a belt sander to remove cling-ons from your stinky side.

You really should try to get test rides. They're really important.

Thank you all for your input, I highly value it.

Assuming I compare F5 to Z5 (both all 105 components, only difference is geometry) my largest concern is comfort, or buying myself into more than I can handle. Since I have not ridden, I don't know if I can handle the more forward geometry of an F series, though I don't know if I may want it in the future. When I sat on the bikes for the first time, I naturally appreciated the Z over the F; I'm used to my fairly upright mountain bike. Though it doesn't mean I can't become used to a more horizontal position.

To me, it's not as easy as the sports car vs the sporty sedan, it's more like: "I'm not sure how upset my body will be with me vs. how upset I will be if I don't have the increased aerodynamics"

This is my big hangup right now :-\. I hope there are some riders that have experienced the same situation, or possibly some fielded riders that would have recommendations. I'm at the price point where I'm not sure how wise it would be to get an entry/mid level bike (~$750 Z100 or $1100 Z85 for example) just to upgrade in a year or 2.

Thanks again,
Justin

rtnlsltn said:

Assuming I compare F5 to Z5 (both all 105 components, only difference is geometry) my largest concern is comfort, or buying myself into more than I can handle.

One thing to remember is that there's a lot of overlap in how you can sit on the bike between the two geometries. If you're looking at moderate position with the top of the bar, say, 1-2 inches lower than the saddle, that position could easily be set on either bike. If your build is of the long legs, short torso variety (actual leg length near or greater than 50% of your total height) the shorter reach of the Z might be helpful. If your hip and lower back flexibility are limited, there's another point for the Z.

On the other hand, if your body proportions are near average and your core strength and flexibility are decent, I'm inclined to say go for the F. I've been riding race geometry bikes since I was about 22, and I don't intend to stop til I'm at least 70.