Carbon Aero and VK2 - My Thoughts
I really hesitate to comment about speed because there are so many factors involved and it is impossible to be entirely factual. That having been said, here goes. You can take my experiences for what they are...my experiences.
I am a middle of the pack (MOTP) rider who has ridden a ti Aero for three years, a VK2 for one year, and a Carbon Aero for 1.5 months. My conclusion: they are all wonderful bikes. Unless you are a serious racer, I wouldn't worry about the speed differences.
The only real speed comparison I can give is between the Ti Aero and the VK2 because I have ridden those two bikes over and over again on exactly the same route under the same varying conditions. The route is an approximately five mile loop at Stone Mountain Park near Atlanta with about 360 feet of climbing per loop. There are some longish climbs reaching 10 % grade and some sections that you can build up optimal speed on downhills and rollers. For 3 loops I was consistently about 1.5-2.5 minutes faster on the VK2.
But, I have not done this comparison yet with the Carbon Aero, which I will do when I return to Atlanta (I am now in flatland Florida). The Carbon Aero is stiffer and I will not be surprised if my speeds on the CA compared to the VK2 are very close.
There is a school of thought out there, that I cannot yet prove, that highracers are better climbers than lowracers when you hit mountainous terrain. Seems logical, but, to me, the VK2 climbs very well. It feels about the same to me on steep climbs as compared to the Ti Aero. Again, when I hit the steep grades in Atlanta with the CA I'll get a better feel for it.
It is my "guess" based on nonscientific experience that the Carbon Aero and the VK2 are very, very close. Both are beautiful bikes and it depends upon whether one likes the high or the low racer configuration.
I will chime in on some other issues as well. The Carbon Aero is better engineered and more user-friendly than the VK2. I had a bit of a struggle getting my VK2 dialed in and working properly. For example, getting the boom length correct was a major event on the VK2. Adjusting the seat and dialing in the CA is a piece of cake. But once set up properly, the VK2 bike really flies and is very, very comfortable. The VK2 is a bit harder to transport because the front forks don't mount on a traditional bike rack. The chainline runs right next to the wheel and rubs against the wheel in sharp turns - a minor issue that rarely affected riding conditions. I am more confident riding the CA in almost any circumstance whereas I was a little hesitant to ride the VK2 in heavy traffic (I know, all in my head). Having ridden both, I feel a bit more at home on the highracer. The VK2 tended to freak out my local bike mechanics more than the Aero. If one is mechanically gifted, this is a non-issue. One drawback of the CA for those living in very mountainous terrain is that it will not handle a 34 tooth rear cog. The chainline likes a 32, but not, I discovered yesterday, a 34.
Finally, I am not a conformist, but the CA fits in better with other bent riders and DF riders. I wouldn't make too much of this, but there are a lot more highracers out there than lowracers. This does impact a bit on the social aspect of riding. When I ride with my buddies on their Corsas, we can converse more easily. There is a large contigent of Bacchetta riders in Atlanta and hardly another lowracer to be found.
This is more than you wanted, but I think the VK2 with all its strengths is a bit more tempremental than the CA. But, for lowracer lovers, it is probably hard to beat the VK2. The highracer design works better given the circumstances in which I ride.
I am a middle of the pack (MOTP) rider who has ridden a ti Aero for three years, a VK2 for one year, and a Carbon Aero for 1.5 months. My conclusion: they are all wonderful bikes. Unless you are a serious racer, I wouldn't worry about the speed differences.
The only real speed comparison I can give is between the Ti Aero and the VK2 because I have ridden those two bikes over and over again on exactly the same route under the same varying conditions. The route is an approximately five mile loop at Stone Mountain Park near Atlanta with about 360 feet of climbing per loop. There are some longish climbs reaching 10 % grade and some sections that you can build up optimal speed on downhills and rollers. For 3 loops I was consistently about 1.5-2.5 minutes faster on the VK2.
But, I have not done this comparison yet with the Carbon Aero, which I will do when I return to Atlanta (I am now in flatland Florida). The Carbon Aero is stiffer and I will not be surprised if my speeds on the CA compared to the VK2 are very close.
There is a school of thought out there, that I cannot yet prove, that highracers are better climbers than lowracers when you hit mountainous terrain. Seems logical, but, to me, the VK2 climbs very well. It feels about the same to me on steep climbs as compared to the Ti Aero. Again, when I hit the steep grades in Atlanta with the CA I'll get a better feel for it.
It is my "guess" based on nonscientific experience that the Carbon Aero and the VK2 are very, very close. Both are beautiful bikes and it depends upon whether one likes the high or the low racer configuration.
I will chime in on some other issues as well. The Carbon Aero is better engineered and more user-friendly than the VK2. I had a bit of a struggle getting my VK2 dialed in and working properly. For example, getting the boom length correct was a major event on the VK2. Adjusting the seat and dialing in the CA is a piece of cake. But once set up properly, the VK2 bike really flies and is very, very comfortable. The VK2 is a bit harder to transport because the front forks don't mount on a traditional bike rack. The chainline runs right next to the wheel and rubs against the wheel in sharp turns - a minor issue that rarely affected riding conditions. I am more confident riding the CA in almost any circumstance whereas I was a little hesitant to ride the VK2 in heavy traffic (I know, all in my head). Having ridden both, I feel a bit more at home on the highracer. The VK2 tended to freak out my local bike mechanics more than the Aero. If one is mechanically gifted, this is a non-issue. One drawback of the CA for those living in very mountainous terrain is that it will not handle a 34 tooth rear cog. The chainline likes a 32, but not, I discovered yesterday, a 34.
Finally, I am not a conformist, but the CA fits in better with other bent riders and DF riders. I wouldn't make too much of this, but there are a lot more highracers out there than lowracers. This does impact a bit on the social aspect of riding. When I ride with my buddies on their Corsas, we can converse more easily. There is a large contigent of Bacchetta riders in Atlanta and hardly another lowracer to be found.
This is more than you wanted, but I think the VK2 with all its strengths is a bit more tempremental than the CA. But, for lowracer lovers, it is probably hard to beat the VK2. The highracer design works better given the circumstances in which I ride.
2 comments:
Is your VK2 for sale? If so, what size or x-seam, what are you asking for it, and where are you located.
Regards,
Scott Compton
Scott,
The VK2 is for sale. It is being held by Power On Cycles in Plant City, Fla. It is a medium frame, I am asking $3300 plus shipping. Let me know if you are interested.
veithr@bellsouth.net
Cheers, Howard
Post a Comment