Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Click the "Create Account" button now to join.

To disable ads, please log-in.

Shop at TeamEstrogen.com for women's cycling apparel.

Results 16 to 17 of 17

Threaded View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Upstate NY
    Posts
    24

    1st road bike - compact v. traditional geometry, etc.

    First, hi. I'm Susie, and I'm a newb.

    I'm a swimmer at heart, trying to become a triathlete this year. My current bike is a 2009 Trek 7.2fx WSD, which I know I could ride in sprint tri's, but I'd be so slow on it that, that it wouldn't be fun. So I'm road bike shopping.

    I'm 5'2", and not particularly leggy. I've been fitted, and am looking at a 47-48 cm frame, and had it narrowed down to three WSD bikes, all compact geometry, aluminum frame, carbon fork, Shimano 105-equipped... and then I talked to a cyclist friend. And now I'm doubting myself.

    He's not a fan of compact geometry, WSD designs, or aluminum frames, and suggested a number of (more expensive) options: Eddy Merckx, Torelli, Moser. Steel or carbon, but no aluminum.

    There's no place around me (for a couple hundred miles) that has traditional geometry frame bikes in small sizes to test ride, and steel isn't easy to find either. What I was looking at was, I imagine, pretty standard "major manufacturer" fair at LBSs. (Scott Contessa Speedster, Specialized Dolce, Trek Lexa, all of which are fairly similar to my untrained eye.) How would one know which would be better to go with? He has me totally doubting aluminum compact frames, and I don't trust my own "feeling" for what's right/wrong/going to last me and my riding for a while.
    Last edited by Susie Derkins; 03-18-2011 at 01:37 PM. Reason: additional info

 

 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •