///M5

Did the LBS you bought from actually do a fitting? If so, how extensive was it? Knowing your exact cockpit size really helps find older bikes that will fit you well. That was the hard part with me. I fit myself, but I don't see the value in dropping $200 for a fitting when I can get within 5% of where I need to be on my own.

I wanted to buy used but because I had never been in the bike world I didn't know what to look for (as far as potential failures) so that's why I went used. I did see this today, would this, by any chance, have been a good buy (second bike down) ? (My frame is 56cm as well) Your frame is center to top, so your 56 is more like a 53-54 in an older bike. I ride a 64cm Trek and have a 61 Lemond. That is also way overpriced. For $300 it would be a great bike. The components are old enough on it that even being Dura-ace I would be replacing them. In particular the down tube shifters can blow me. We have lots of rolling hills though so I am constantly shifting. I am also confused as I thought the technium was Raleigh's terminology for their 6061 aluminum. The 753 tubing is good for touring, but isn't the lightest steel available. Basically it is 531 with some treatment. A bike with a 531 frame and replaceable components really shouldn't cost you more than 3 bills. Considering it is too big that doesn't matter. **note, until 1 month ago I had never been on a rode bike but I have a ton of saddle time on a Mountain Bike**

I was just having you clarify what you didn't like to try to find a solution for something else. Not having any experience with that comp set makes it hard, which is why all the questions although I don't think it was super helpful. I assume you've tried some cuts at the annoying frequencies to no avail. Considering this is a jump for you into the active realm, I'd pick drivers on the easier side to integrate. In particular since you are sensitive to ranges where cone breakup is a concern (or your current drivers really fail there). That being said, generically this would be a paper (or similarly forgiving cone) midrange and a tweeter. If you can fit one, a large format tweeter will generically also make the integration easier as they will be more forgiving allowing the use of lower slopes and crossover points for the same dollars spent. I am sure you've stated a budget somewhere, but let us know if a large format (4" baffle or so) tweeter will fit, its mounting locations and the max driver size for the mid and its mounting location.

Xovers today are not all that complex as people make them out to be. Something is complex if we don't understand. 90% of the time when a company uses a xover, it's used for all of its sizes. 6 1/2", 5 1/4", 4". They look at it as it's the tweeter that remained constant so the xover point should too. It's just limited by how low the comp set will play after that determined by the driver. I will also point out, as I didn't mention the first time around, that the speakers sensitivity will also play a big role, hence tweeter attenuation. LOL, really good reason then to never buy from whatever company that is.

Proven by whom and for how long? Cheap parts and manufacturing. I have no interest in them. As long as the port area is appropriate there is no advantage or disadvantage (generically speaking) of any shape.

Instead of quoting I'll just respond. Passive crossovers for cars are full of assumptions and compromises. Having this done for a 2way is bad enough, but for three it is terrible. All decent crossover designs take the baffle, driver orientation, driver location to each other, and room placement into account. Obviously none of these are done for a 3 way passive for a car. The result is always a mess. I've never heard a set that I thought sounded worth a damn. 3 way active on the other hand can work out really well, but for someone who has never had an active setup the same problems exist as with the passive in that most definitely they will not integrate things right. There is a reason that seasoned vets will tell you that all good sounding systems are 90% in the install. This install includes tuning as well as mounting and it is darn impossible to do that with a 3 way passive.

Again, I will add in your price point for a new bike you did well. Not at all knocking your purchase. The only way you could have improved would be to buy used. Perhaps you could have saved $50 and bought a Giant, but I wouldn't split hairs over $50. The only advantage of the Giant is that since they manufacture everyone's bikes they can price their own slightly cheaper.

"too many quotes, damn" This was not the point of my argument. I tried to approach it via performance aspects only, not relating it to cost, and I still feel my statement is generally un-flawed assuming neither frame will break under normal usage (with the rate that technology is improving and prices are reducing, if my frame does in fact break in 15 years I feel I could replace the frame with something superior for less money IF necessary) It won't make it 15 years if you ride seriously. I've never seen an aluminum frame with 15,000mi on it. They all eventually break. The thing is that most people that buy them never ride them so it doesn't matter. Three schools of thought IMO when buying a bike. You are either paying for the component set, the frame or both. Personally I like to separate the too. Lots of people will tell you to get a good frame so you can add to it component wise in the future. I on the other hand will find the best deal. I can change either, it doesn't bother me. Both portions are resellable down the road if you get to a situation where you can. In my case the Lemond fits me pretty good, but the Ultegra set I could be happy with for years. Found a Poprad frame I might buy ($125) which would allow me a second set of wheels for when I want to go offroading. Of course, I may just build up another bike and sell my Mountain Bike anyways. Most of the Madone series is less than 5K and has a full carbon fiber frame. But yes, more than 2K on a bike is stupid for the rec rider, bt I think CF is going to get cheap quick in the next decade. For it to get cheap, it will have to either get made in huge quantities or get made overseas. Neither interest me. Same reason there aren't cheap Ti bikes is that the manufacturing is not easy and they fail at it in Asia. Ti is barely heavier than Carbon when done right and has nearly the same advantages with less disadvantages. It has also been around for years, but has not successfully made it into mainstream. Both because it is hard to manufacture and that the advantage to average Joe is zero. I don't think you'll see mainstream Carbon for a while. Not unless we have a steel or aluminum shortage. Do realize that the cost to Giant for an aluminum frame is probably around $5. (guess, but a good one) Why did I pick Giant? Well they manufacture pretty much everyone's bike including yours. Isn't the Utegra set made of aluminum??? : P I kid I kid. Yes, it is. Forged though. The thing is the performance and less weight is marginal, but the comfort and longevity is not. Exactly my argument. You will be NO faster and feel the minimal weight difference in the bike, but you will be way more comfortable and have a bike forever if it is steel.

I was never ripping your decision. You have a good bike, I am more attacking the general public and the manufacturers. If you buy a Trek there is only one that is made in steel and it is the 520, which is a great bike btw. The geometry is much better for most people although bike shops will push them onto something else instead. I am surprised a bit at your lbs, if you talk to any of the guys at all the ones I went to locally they will tell you that they all prefer steel. Literally every single sales person I spoke to has a steel bike themselves but all they sell are aluminum & carbon. Cracked me up. Of course, as a population I bet we have a few more serious riders here than elsewhere. I was just citing your comment earlier about being flat where you live. Either way, you personally would see absolutely no benefit in aluminum for those climbs. Unless of course you are counting tenths. I literally lol'ed when I read this. It may be true but it still made me lol I sort of smirked when typing it. There are a few reasons that ALL touring bikes are steel (or titanium which is similar in many ways and better of course in many). Point well taken I didn't stress enough that performance on a bike is WAY more in the rider than the bike anyways.

No goals = hard to help. One thing is easy though, no one should recommend the AQ.

How flexible is the PXA in its cuts? Not surprised there are problems in a passive three way, they are NEVER a good idea IMO. edit: in a vehicle

Your preference is based on the same marketing failure...if not I'd like to hear the reasons. As for better wheels and tires being more important, then why did you spend the extra on a new aluminum frame? Quote from earlier... So as I see it... Stiffer where is needs to be stiffer. Flexible CF in the forks/ seat stem increases comfort. Lighter = Better Performance More likely to fail but never fails (as far as my research is concerned I have not seen an Al bike fail due to regular use) Seems win win to me. Yes, Steel WILL last longer but it seems than many people never reach the life cycle of aluminum frames. I'm riding the bike on the road, it will never see a fall more than 2 inches (Min of rear and front tire elevation). Yes, Steel MAY be more comfortable than an Aluminum frame but if I'm comfortable on the Al frame what does it matter? Though i did see in my research it seems that Steel frames are actually more expensive than Aluminum (due to additional craftsmanship required, I'm not totally sold but I'll go with it) . Which makes sense that they do not offer Steel frames. I can promise that if Steel is cheaper AND superior there is no way they would not be available. My steel bike has carbon where yours does btw, and add to that in the seat as well. If you are concerned about performance why did you buy heavy pedals and shoes that just cost you all the weight savings that you had gained by going aluminum? As for stiffer where it needs to be stiffer, umm you live in Texas where it is flat. There is no benefit when you aren't climbing. And where there is benefit it is extremely dubious. In order to gain that stiffness you have to lose com pliability by using large diameter tubes which makes things harsh and resonate, which is bad on the frame and your body. If you are comfortable on your frame, keep adding time in the saddle until you are not and then realize you'd still be if it were steel. Sounds to me like you swallowed the marketing pill that has ruined most of the bike design firms. Aluminum is cheaper which is why it is made. Cheaper does not generally equal better. Marketing departments have people thinking lighter is better and faster, but it is a completely stupid argument. Where is it easier to lose 500g, in your frame or in your gut? Really simple solution if you are a weight weenie, learn how to eat and exercise to maximize weight loss. The ONLY time I am concerned about weight on a bike is when I want to get the bike airborn. Throwing around a heavy bike is much harder. Doesn't make it jump any worse, but surely gives you a different feeling of confidence when you need to pull something off. Amusing that you say frames never break. You should spend some time on cycling forums. They break and wear out all the time. How many rims have you destroyed? It really isn't much harder to break a frame. I guarantee that if you ride a steel bike that is 10lbs heavier than your aluminum and your bike through the same time trial that the only difference will be where your heart let you ride harder and brain let you ride more efficiently. You are NOT faster on your aluminum than you would be on a 1975 steel bike (let's assume same geometry for wind resistance...I know there is no way the frame will have the same geometry, but your riding position could surely be the same). It is YOU that makes the ride effective, not the bike. Carbon may be exciting, but for the recreational rider it is a joke. Spending $5-10k on a bike is stupid. If your wife bumps it with a bag of groceries and dents the frame it is destroyed which is gay. And again, it will make YOU no faster. Sort of the same bullshit that is happening. Everyone is buying bikes that are way too small for them so that they look like they have Lance's stance on their bike. It doesn't make them faster and in fact makes them slower, but that is the current fad. Stupid buying public. The flex argument I laugh at too. Sitting at a stop sign I can push and flex my Ultegra crank set. It is most definitely stiffer and stronger than your FSA. Pretty great that your bottom bracket is stiff, but your crank isn't. Funny argument if you ask me. Don't mean to rant, but the amount of useless information in the cycle industry is whacked. Took me a long time to sort through it and realize that it is exactly the same as it was in 1993 when I bought my last bike. A bunch of bs promoting something that is of no benefit.

You and me both! 3x ftmfl

Why do you ask about SQ and then "hope" to break 140. Counterintuitive and completely opposite goals...at least without discussion of a honking ridiculously huge and exciting front stage.

well i havent killed anything yet to date so i must be doing something right, i just would like to know how it will do with daily abuse and how many people have ran them deathrows at 3000 rms daily. I can repeat myself from above. If you are asking the question with such blanket suggestions you obviously have no idea what is "right". Power isn't what kills woofers, but how you apply the power. Your question is idiotic. You obviously do not realize that if you go from 3000wrms to 2000wrms your ears WON'T notice the difference. If you aren't competing and chasing tenths asking what power is pointless. Even if you are asking what power without consideration of frequency AND enclosure is also pointless. Way too many other ways to kill a woofer.

If you are asking the question then most likely you will kill your woofers with the power. It isn't the amount but how it gets used.

Are you running them active? If so, at what settings?

The biggest influence on SQ will be how you integrate those with your front stage. It is rather easy to get subs to sound good, not so easy to get your system.

8" Peerless and a 5.25" mid? Any reason you didn't use a more dedicated actual midrange instead of the woofer you have?

No comment yet.

Your preference is based on the same marketing failure...if not I'd like to hear the reasons. As for better wheels and tires being more important, then why did you spend the extra on a new aluminum frame?

Marketing failure is why they don't make any steel bikes.

Any idea what frequencies are the ones fatiguing? Have you played with any sweeps or warble tones?

top

I don't do much walking in the shoes that I ride in If you use your bike for transportation at all you would. Yesterday for instance, I rode to my brothers house and picked up my truck. Then drove to Home Depot and went shopping, followed by a jaunt through the grocery store. The whole time in my cycling shoes as I didn't want to carry something else with me. This summer I'll ride down town for dinner or to go to a market regularly. I see no reason for road shoes ever. If sole stiffness is a concern for power transfer then you just buy a real mountain shoe with a carbon sole as well. It does make it so you can't use the Look or Speedplay based pedals, but they aren't any better at power transfer than a whip style anyways. Hell in college I only wore tow pairs of hoses. One was my birkenstocks, the other my Sidi's. Not counting when I was tending bar of course, which I would have done in my Mountain shoes if I had to ride to work but considering I lived above the bar that wasn't a problem.