New road bike

I would recommend aluminum with better components. It's even debatable whether a carbon frame is truly better for you, so scrimping on components to get one isn't warranted.

You seem to be my exact size. (if that 34" is actual measured length, rather than pants' inseam).

I just bought a bike and chose a 60cm frame as measured from center of bottom bracket to TOP of seat tube. It's feasible to go as low as 58cm for a guy your size, however the more important measurement is cockpit length (length from seat to handlebars). This is affected by the top-tube length, but can also be adjusted with stem length and seat position (although ideal seat position should be set in relation to the pedals, so that leaves stem only).

the point is you can feel safe buying a frame between 58-60cm, but if you also buy the stem at the same time, you might not have the right reach and that's the part you'll be most likely to have to replace. Whereas if you buy from a shop that can fit the bike you won't have that potential problem.
However, you can very likely get a good fit if you are communicating with a knowledgable person at the vendor you are buying from and provide them with details on your size.

Some good deals on aluminum bikes can be found at these places:

www.bikesdirect.com
www.leaderbikestore.com

jyeager said:

I would recommend aluminum with better components. It's even debatable whether a carbon frame is truly better for you, so scrimping on components to get one isn't warranted.

If you were talking about Sora or Tiagra components verses 105 components, I would agree; however, for $2500 you can get carbon with Ultegra components. Thee is no need to go to Dura Ace components unless you are a top level racer. Up to the 105 level, as you go up in price you get better performance, but above the 105 level, all you get are cosmetic differences and weight savings. The jump from Tiagra to 105 is worth the price, but the jump from 105 to Ultegra or Ultegra to Dura Ace gives smaller and smaller differences for more and more money.

To your list of bikes, I would add the Trek Pilot 5.2 and the Felt f4. Try them all and buy the one that fits you the best.

Sure, but how about this aluminum ultegra bike vs. your carbon ultegra?

leaderbikestore.compd ld 736r1.cfmOpen ↗

$1398 vs $2500. (I didn't know if this fella was in the 2500 price range). So is carbon $1100 better? That was my only point.

I'll agree with you on your assessment about components. A newbie going to Dura Ace over 105 or Ultegra doesn't make sense and I suppose that I should have clarified that.

Then again, it looks like carbon might only carry a $100 premium.

bikesdirect.comimmortalforce 07.htmOpen ↗

Thanx for your suggestions. I guess my question should be revised a bit. I don't want to spend $2500 on a carbon bike with 105 or ultergra, if a aluminum will do. ( advantages of carbon?) I also dont want a bike (frame) that I grow out of and wished I had invested more. Making any sense?

rye_70 said:

Thanx for your suggestions. I guess my question should be revised a bit. I don't want to spend $2500 on a carbon bike with 105 or ultergra, if a aluminum will do. ( advantages of carbon?) I also dont want a bike (frame) that I grow out of and wished I had invested more. Making any sense?

It does not matter what you get, in a few years something better (or at least different) will come along and most people will want the new bike. That said, whether you need carbon or whether aluminum will do depends on you. Some people think carbon gives a better ride. Others see nothing wrong with the aluminum ride. Some are afraid that carbon and aluminum will lead to catostrophic frame failures and would not recommend anything other than steel. Most of the differences are either theoretically or subjective rather than proven or objective. Also, the differences among different carbon frames and among different aluminum frames are larger than the real difference between the two materials. You can only ride the bikes and see what feels best to you.

Personally, I could not tell the difference between 105 and Ultegra or between the Specialized Roubaix Elite and the Trek Pilot 5.2. The differences between these bikes and the Specialized Allez or Tarmac or Trek 5000 are due to differences in geometry, and not the differences in frame materials or components.

RickF said:

It does not matter what you get, in a few years something better (or at least different) will come along and most people will want the new bike. That said, whether you need carbon or whether aluminum will do depends on you. Some people think carbon gives a better ride. Others see nothing wrong with the aluminum ride. Some are afraid that carbon and aluminum will lead to catostrophic frame failures and would not recommend anything other than steel. Most of the differences are either theoretically or subjective rather than proven or objective. Also, the differences among different carbon frames and among different aluminum frames are larger than the real difference between the two materials. You can only ride the bikes and see what feels best to you.

Personally, I could not tell the difference between 105 and Ultegra or between the Specialized Roubaix Elite and the Trek Pilot 5.2. The differences between these bikes and the Specialized Allez or Tarmac or Trek 5000 are due to differences in geometry, and not the differences in frame materials or components.

Very true.

the continual evolution of equipment as well as your personal evolution as a cyclist may lead you to wanting a new bike in the future even if you bought the $2500 bicycle.
However, in regard to quality or materials, neither of the $1500 bikes I mentioned above using Ultegra will ever be less bike than you need.

It seems a no-brainer to me that you should be looking at this segment of the market. The bang-for-the-buck is the best. The real question becomes fit and subjective factors which we can't really help with. And you really can't tell either unless you somehow have the ability to ride a lot of different bikes to test them out.