The Specialized S-Works kind of has that look of the top tube curving into the seat stays.
I like the Pinarello out of the three that you posted. More classic looking geometry.
Also, the Giant TCR bikes are in your price range and have a great reputation among the guys I ride/race with.
I tried the Specialized you linked last year. Nice bike but it didn’t excite me. Not sure why. I think it looks like it will not age well, geometry wise.
Tested the Giant as well. It may have been a poor fit and I may give it another shot but I felt stretched too far over the top tube. Not compact enought or something.
The Pinarello is still my favourite. 
But the Motobecane is fast becoming more intersting. Given the new Ultegra group and the rest of the equipment… it seems a shame not to give it a shot at the price. Even if I only ride it for a season or two. I could always make it my tri bike with a swap of the bars, crank and maybe wheels.
One thing I’d say, Quicksilver, is to try a carbon fiber bike. Last year my old steel frame died and I road tested several different bicycles. I discovered I absolutely hate aluminum frames. Ugh, they just magnify all road noise. But after riding my first carbon fiber, I was a convert. I love the feel, I love the handling.
I bought a Specialized Roubaix. I also road tested the Trek Pilot, which I also liked, although you pay for the “Trek” name with that one, which is why I didn’t get it.
Out of the brands you’ve listed, you might try the Pinarello F4:13. One of the regulars in our riding group has two Pinarellos, actually, an old classic and a new one he bought a while back, and he absolutely loves it. Plus it’s what Jan rides, so how could you go wrong?
Mrazek, perhaps?
Interesting, but no. These guys were (I’m almost certain) a U.S. manufacturer.
I have and I realize that no two models of a carbon fiber frame are the same. Some have a livelier feel than others. But I kinda like a hard, twitchy ride that aluminum frames tend to offer. Yeah, it’s a bit unforgiving on rough surfaces and over long distances but I still enjoy the road feel it offers. Of course a little damping from a carbon fiber fork and seat post is a welcome relief.
For me, the bike’s appearance is irrelavent, it’s the feel of the bike that’s important, specifically the geometry, i prefer longer top tubes, a more stretched-out riding position, with that in mind, i’d look at the Cannondale or Litespeed, the Pinarello looks too cramped for me
I think a 130 stem is a lot easier way to get whatever you want in position than buying around a bike frame.
Having the right frame in the first place is better. Although my racing bike is the 53 cm Litespeed, I also have a custom Land Shark. Now, this Land Shark wasn’t custom built for me, but the original owner decided he didn’t like it. It’s a steel frame (Reynolds 531) with a 51 c-c seat tube and a 55 c-c top tube. That makes it a fairly odd size. Now I like the long top tube, and even with that I have 120 stem on it.
I’ll race the Litespeed, but the bike I take to El Tour de Tucson is the Land Shark. For long rides, it’s much more comfortable. Standard sizes fit most people, and even I’m happy with the standard geometry Litespeed, but that long bike is nice! If you want a long frame, buy a long frame because you won’t be happy with a short one. If you want a tight frame, buy a tight frame.
Okay, I gotta ask you Dag Otto… How tall are you?
I’m looking at a 54cm frame thinking it will be just about right for me with a 110/120 stem.
But I’m 5’8 with a 32" inseam and a pretty long arm reach (wear 34" sleeve shirts).
I like a compact (tight) fit on the bike.
Also, how wide should the bars be, 42 or 44 cm?
I’m also 5’ 8" but with a 31" inseam. I think my torso is longer that usual, which is why I like the longer top tube. A 53 is good for me, so 54 sounds about right for you. If you like the compact fit and want to use it for TT’s, then you might want to select a frame with a steeper seat angle (74 or more) that would put you in a better aero position.
Bar width is a personal preference. I have 42’s on my road bikes and thought they were great (and they are) but then I bought a cross bike with 44’s. I really like the 44’s, but not so much that I’m going to replace perfectly good 42’s.
No, of course, get the right size I’m just saying that there’s no point in trying to include the two tenths of a centimeter which all the frame geometries differ by in your calculus. I mean, if you want to actually be more stretched out, you shouldn’t buy a bigger bike which will change a dozen other size factors, you should just buy a longer stem that does what you want to your position directly.
It’s a comfort/speed thing, I guess. Most pro’s have freakishly long stems, even up to 140 and I’m pretty conifdent that they can (usually) get any size frame they want.
I agree. The fine tuning is done with stems and seatposts, but there is enough difference in geometry between frames that frame selection matters. QuickSilver is still looking around so it’s something he should consider.
Here is another thought. I think that the intended use as a century bike and a TT bike are at odds with each other. I don’t know what his buget is, but if he can get the Motobecane for his road bike, he may be able to afford the Cervélo Dual with Ultegra ($1,650) as a TT rig.
I’ve ridden enough Tri bikes to know I dislike the road feel of a steeply angled tube and the weight forward position of this kind of bike. Handling ability goes all to hell.
My intention is to primarily have a good road bike for longer distances (50 miles and up) and then to perhaps think about a TT/Tri bike. Converting the Motobecane for the purposes of using it as a Tri bike makes more sense to me than trying to monkey with the Pinarello (far too beautiful as is).
Of couse, just buying a Tri bike is worth considering as well. Cervello, Quintana Roo and even Motobecane make some nice bikes in various price ranges. But I really have to see if I even enjoy triathlons enough to warrant the purchase of single purpose bike.
In any case, I’m going to road test some bikes in the next few weeks and make my decision. Likelyhood is, I’ll end up with something I’ve not even considered yet.
I have a lot of love for Cannondale. I have ridden both mountain and road on them and they are great.
The Litespeed does have the Ti fame, and I hear good things about them. They’er supposed to have the light weight of aluminum and the shock absorbing ability of steel.
For aestetic purposes I love the Kestral. I can’t afford to ride one, but they are nice to look at.
Hey QuickSilver – I think I found your curvy mystery bike.
I was paging through one of my old Bicycling magazines tonight (sept 2004 issue to be precise) and in the gear section I ran across the Retrotec Half .
The pictures on the Retrotec site don’t do it justice. In the magazine, it’s one sweet looking machine.
That’s exactly it! Well done, **Bottle of Smoke ** (Great song too, btw).
It is one cool looking bike. Wonder how it rides.
Happy to oblige.
As for ride quality, the one Bicycling featured was decked out with full Dura-Ace group (except for brakes by Zero Gravity) and Reynold Stratus wheels. They said the frame is “not only beautiful, it’s a hell of a value” and “in all its arched glory, the Half looks like it might be a Sunday cruiser, but the beefy chainstays (Columbus or Reynolds, depending on desired ride quality) give a stout feel under power.” Make of that what you will. Unfortunately they didn’t have a full road test write up or anything like that.
It would definately be a conversation starter though.
I wrote them for a catalogue and whatever info may be available on their line of road and mountain bikes.
I’ll share my findings with anyone who is interested.
Thanks again Smoke.