Thanks for your info, Tulip. The alum v stele thing definitely has me confused. Alum b/c lighter and easier for long distances but steel for comfort on rougher surfaces?
Thanks for your info, Tulip. The alum v stele thing definitely has me confused. Alum b/c lighter and easier for long distances but steel for comfort on rougher surfaces?
I would not say that aluminum is easier for long distances. Aluminum is very rattly to ride on, and gets pretty tiring and annoying on longer rides. One feels every bump. The Orbea might have a carbon fork; I couldn't tell from a quick glance at the specs. That would help. Go ride all three again and pay attention to the feel of the road. Go over bumpy roads, don't just stick to the smooth parking lot of the bike shop.
If weight is important to you, really look at the differences in the bikes (with pedals and saddles). I bet these bikes are going to be pretty similar in weight. I find the argument about the importance of bike weight for recreational riders to be quite silly. Most people would do better to get a comfortable bike that fits them and lose 5 lbs (or more!) on themselves, as opposed to buying the lightest bike, which would only be a pound or two lighter at the most. When you get up to higher level carbon bikes, then there's a big difference. The weight difference between the Jamis Coda and carbon Orbea Orca is going to be significant, but we're not talking about Orcas here.
Thanks so much for all your valuable info, Tulip. I'll take your advice and go test them all again and let you know where I land!
happy riding