You are reading a single comment by @edscoble and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
edscoble-
The Ultimate CF SL Aero 9.0 is the one is discussion. Rolls right off the tongue :)
I looked at the base Aeroad, but it looked a bit extreme for my needs. Stack and Reach worked out quite a bit longer and lower than my current set up too, which wouldn't be ideal obviously. Plus it's extra money, and I kind of had £2500 as a nominal price limit!
thross
Advanced warning, this'll be an essay...
Canyon hive mind, I'm torn between bikes, and hope you can offer some advice.
The two in question are both Ultimate 9.0 SLs. One is the AL SLX, one the CF Aero.
Comparison - https://www.canyon.com/en-gb/tools/bike-comparison/#biketype=1&bike1=3739&bike2=3747
TLDR - Which one!?
Please read on if you can be bothered, I'm mostly typing it all out to consolidate my thoughts.
History - I have never bought a new road bike. I rode a cobbled together Giant Cadex several years ago and liked it, but wanted to ride fixed when I moved to Uni in Norwich, so have ridden old track bikes for the past several years day in day out, for commuting and my road rides. I want to treat myself to a new modern road bike for weekends and trips to see friends in hilly places, and have decided on a Canyon for many reasons, however am torn between the two mentioned above.
Fit/geometry - Thankfully, both frames are almost identical. The only discrepancy being a 7mm shorter seat tube on the CF, which is largely irrelevant on modern frames anyway. The Stack and the Reach for the size L are both very close to my current 58 square track bike, so hopefully that will work out perfectly. I run a 120 stem currently, and the Canyons ship with a 110 as standard in L, so hopefully that will be a happy compromise for riding further forward on hoods rather than just on the top bends of lever less drops, if that makes sense. There's maybe a fraction extra Stack compared to my current bike, but that'll just allow more comfort in the drops anyway, which will be no bad thing.
Material - I've got no ego attached to having a carbon bike whatsoever. I'd gladly have the peace of mind with a metal bike in fact, especially knowing that any spills might not be fatal for the frame set. Crackyon life, and all that! But, if I'm spending all of this money, would I be silly not to get a carbon bike while I can afford one? I really need guidance here - do you have to be really precious with carbon bikes, or is that a bit of a myth now the design is so refined? Would I constantly be worried about random carbon failures? Of course, it's a full carbon fork on both, and the AL actually comes out as slightly lighter bike thanks to the Force 22 and the Ksyriums, speaking of which...
Wheels - I live in Norwich. Norfolk is mostly flat, but Norfolk is also often windy. There are no big hills to contend with, so I'm not so bothered about the rotational weight saving (especially as I have few problems on the majority of hills here on my steel track bike, and will be dropping 2kg off that, and adding gears into the equation!) However I'm also only 70kgs myself at 6' 3", so cross winds with 50mm rims could be an issue if taken by surprise if I got the Cosmics? Braking performance should be close to identical for both too, as they both have an aluminium brake track with the Exalith 2 coating.
All of that said, I can't get over the fact that the build with the Cosmics that come with the CF just looks so much better than the build with the Ksyriums on the AL. It's disgracefully vain, but if I'm spending £2000 on a bike, I want to be totally thrilled with it, and I'd hate to get the AL and feel a slight pang of regret. But, is the CF really worth £500 more than the AL, if I'm only being swayed by the wheels, and if I'm verging on cautious, nay concerned about a full carbon bike? Possible option/solution is buying the AL, trying to sell the Ksyriums very close to retail, and buying the Cosmics myself as a 'best of both worlds'. Seems a bit convoluted though.
Group - I hear Ultegra and Force 22 are pretty negligible, although the SRAM might edge it on weight and aesthetics (for me.) I had old Flightdeck era Sora on my old Cadex, so I know very roughly how Shimano gears feel, but I imagine things have advanced so far by now that either system would be a huge improvement, and would present a bit of a learning curve either way, so not really bothered. Shimano stuff might be fractionally easier/cheaper to find in shops? Again, not a deal breaker of any sort.
Components - Essentially identical again. Only difference is you get the flashy variable setback post with the CF, and the AL has a cheaper, aluminium topped setback post. Bars, stem, tape, tyres, tubes and saddle are all the same.
I really just need all of you to tell me to stop being a dick about fancy aesthetics, and to go for the AL and ride it into the ground/up all the hills I can find, as I know it's the most logical choice.
But this is a bike forum, not a logic forum, and I can't stop thinking about rolling out on the CF with those Cosmics on a Summer's day and feeling like a kid on Batman's bike.
Any opinions or advice would be great. Inevitable trolling will be gracefully endured. Thanks. Al.