Bianchi Eros Donna/Veloce or Giant TCR 3?

[roguedog]

Sorry Mimi.. my bad phrasing..

What he meant was that the heart of the bike is the frame so if you think you're going to grow into the sport get a frame with decent components that you can upgrade later.

For instance, the TCR C3 is the bottom end of the series. At the top, they have Dura Ace with fancier Mavic wheels, etc going for like 4k.

The Vigorelli is simply the Eros' frame with Ultegra components and nicer wheels.

I dunno.. conflicted ... just when I thought I had made a decision Well at least I've narrowed it down to like 2-3 bikes rather than having the whole pantheon open to me.

[xeney]

Anyway.. well, after I test rode both bikes side by side, the LBS said that the (Eros owners cover your eyes) that Eros' frame wasn't really worth upgrading cuz it's a mid-end steel frame. He'd rather I put the money into a nicer frame, the Giant TCR C3, because the frame itself one I can grow into more..

Ugh, Roguedog, you got bad advice from that bike shop owner. At least, Bianchi doesn't agree with him. From this page:

The Eros has the same great Reynolds frame as the Veloce, Vigorelli and Imola, but with the more affordable 27-speed Campagnolo Mirage groupset.

So Bianchi certainly thinks it is a frame worthy of better components. The Vigorelli is the exact same frame. (And I am pretty sure that Sky Yaeger -- a woman! -- is still design director for Bianchi USA.)

I still say you should choose whichever one you like best, or keep looking. Maybe neither of these bikes is for you. But steel versus carbon fiber is just a preference thing; the idea that CF is a "better" material is kind of silly. It's better for some things, some people like it better. Lots of people prefer steel. Here's a counterpoint to bike shop guy's opinion.

[7rider]

It's common for bike lines to use the same frame, and just up-spec the components as you go up the line. For example, to use the Shimano line, Frame X with Taigra is entry level, Frame X with 105 is a step up (and a step up in price), Frame X with Ultegra and finally with Dura Ace. Major changes in frame (say from touring geometry to racing) will result in a new line.
I'm not familiar with the Giant line, but I'd venture that they do things similarly.
Fit and comfort and how it feels to you are the key things here.

[roguedog]

Thanks all.

I agree with you all. I think both bikes are good and I'll like them both. Which is probably the crux of my problem with deciding on which. They both have the ride qualities (lively, good road feeedback without road buzz, faaaast, zipeeee) I like but their personalities are just slightly different.

So.. from there you kinda have to break it down to the "little things" like components, the "right now" value and the potential upradeabbility.. don't you?

Speaking of.. does anyone know how "princess like" carbon is? Do you really have to baby it and all? Is it true that if you biff on it it's a goner? On the other hand, steel.. don't you have to worry bout rust and all?

[mimitabby]

You can rub steel clean to get the rust off.
Carbon fiber can't be fixed.
A bike friend was in an accident recently and his carbon fork shredded into a
million shards. Meanwhile, the steel in the rest of his bike bent.
the steel could be bent back, the carbon, well, he's lucky he didn't get stabbed with it.
I also have heard complaints about carbon parts just breaking under stress. The thing is, carbon is expensive. If your steel part breaks (which isn't going to happen) it's going to cost a lot less than the carbon part.
I am feeling very guilty for letting them talk me into buying a carbon fork
instead of a steel one.

[KnottedYet]

That is my fear with carbon forks. I hear too much about them disintegrating. Yeah, a good carbon fork is supposed to feel like steel. The benefit is the weight reduction. If I want to feel like steel, I'll ride on steel. Weight doesn't matter that much to me. After all, I weigh a whole lot more than the bike anyway.

Like Mr. Bontrager (can't remember his first name, sorry) says: "Cheap, strong, or light. You can have 2, but not all 3."

I'm more comfortable physically and mentally with a steel fork. (which my Kona has, and my Waterford has.)

My biking gurus at my LBS say steel can break, but it generally fails slowly enough that you can tell something is wrong and stop while aluminum and CF do "catastrophic failure". (these guys are crazy mountain bikers and really trash their bikes, your results may vary...)

[xeney]

In my house we have or have recently sold steel bikes from the 40s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, and 2000s. The ones from the 40s and 60s do have some rust, but they were both clearly left outside for years and years. The one from the 70s has some surface rust that could be taken care of with a steel pad if anyone liked that bike enough to bother. The ones from the 80s and 90s are completely clean.

I asked my husband about this yesterday because his new bike is CF. He loves that bike but he says he expects to trade it out for a custom steel frame in four or five years. CF is a lot better than it used to be, but I don't think anyone really knows how long CF frames are going to last. Earlier generations of CF frames are pretty much no longer on the road ... you see those ten-year-old Specialized Epics around, but that's about it.

(He wrecked his Giant last night, not badly but enough to put a ding on chain stay, and I am now a little worried about his continuing to ride it. On the other hand, he got hit by a car on a 12-year-old steel Allez this spring, and the frame is bent and unfixable, so the permanence of steel is also possibly a little exaggerated in some quarters.)