I've been cycling about 3 years and am eyeing a new bike early next year. Right now I'm on a ~12 year old carbon bike my FIL built for himself. He's taller than I am and the riding position is longer than I want it to be so I'm going to replace this thing in the coming months. This bike has Ultegra components and Mavic wheels. It's a nice rig particularly given how old it is and that it's been free for two years. I'm thinking I basically want a new version of this bike and in my size instead of his.

Recently I visited Richardson Bike Mart and visited with a long time rider that works there who is related to my stepmom, meaning low pressure and not much salesman in the conversation. We narrowed down to the Trek Emonda SL6 and Giant Propel Advanced 1 Disk. As far as I can tell the only substantive difference is that the Trek has aluminum rims and the Giant has carbon.

During our conversation he asked me what surfaces I rode and I said that of my 22 mile "base" ride about a third is chip seal. For those in CS I live out by the river at the end of Koppe Bridge. I make my way to Castlegate and down into town. So about 4 miles of chip seal headed out and back. He was pretty strong in his opinion that carbon would have a big impact on how smooth any bike was on that surface even if I just put them on the current bike. Is that the board's opinion too? I've read a few articles on the subject but wanted to check with y'all.

Given all of that any other bikes I should be looking at? The Trek noted about is a $3300 ride, the Giant $4500. The Giant is above my range but if the wheel different is worth it I'll probably do it anyway.

Thanks for the feedback.

As far as chip seal goes, most of the feedback I've heard is around (a) wider tires with (b) lower psi.

https://www.active.com/cycling/articles/7-tips-for-cycling-on-rough-roads

https://www.bikeforums.net/general-cycling-discussion/1180243-how-go-fast-chip-seal-roads.html

I rented carbon wheels for Ironman Florida and there was one stretch of chip seal. It was still noticeable.

On the topic of a bike, you should be able to find a solid used bike for under $3k.

Most people buy carbon wheels for performance reasons rather than comfort reasons. Carbon wheels are significantly more aerodynamic and lighter than aluminum. Whether or not that's worth it is up to you. If you ride just for fun/exercise maybe it's not worth it. For those who ride competitively it ranges from "worth it" to "absolutely worth it" depending on how close to the pointy end of the field you are. I've been on carbon wheels for 5 of the 6 years I have been riding. I really don't think you would notice much of a difference from a comfort standpoint.

Oh...and they look super cool. That's gotta be worth something

Those are both 'aero' road bikes. They are built to be sleek, not comfortable. If you aren't planning on racing, neither of these bike is a great choice. I would look more at a giant defy. As far as wheels go, carbon is aero and stiff, neither of which makes a difference on how much chip seal you feel. A carbon wheel will not smooth out bad roads. A carbon frame and bars can help though.

I bought some for my tri bike. Other than looking cool I think money could have spent elsewhere for better value. Simply being in better shape or being a few lbs lighter probably would have been an even better improvement to my time.

SteveA said:

---

Those are both 'aero' road bikes. They are built to be sleek, not comfortable. If you aren't planning on racing, neither of these bike is a great choice. I would look more at a giant defy. As far as wheels go, carbon is aero and stiff, neither of which makes a difference on how much chip seal you feel. A carbon wheel will not smooth out bad roads. A carbon frame and bars can help though.

---

Thanks for this advice. I'm not a racer. This suggestion led me down the sportive bike rabbit hole but it'll be time well spent. Not really sure I knew of this subset of road bikes so thank you. I'll focus more here.

Appreciate everyone's response on carbon wheels. That's why I love this forum. Good advice to be had on most any fitness related topic.

So, uh, what are you going to do with the old bike? Sell it on the cheap to a guy on TexAgs? Maybe his name rhymes with barely?

SteveA said:

---

Those are both 'aero' road bikes. They are built to be sleek, not comfortable. If you aren't planning on racing, neither of these bike is a great choice. I would look more at a giant defy. As far as wheels go, carbon is aero and stiff, neither of which makes a difference on how much chip seal you feel. A carbon wheel will not smooth out bad roads. A carbon frame and bars can help though.

---

The Emonda is not an aero road bike. The Madone fills the aero slot in Trek's lineup. I have a 2015 Emonda SL6 and I love it. The Emonda is supposed to be Trek's lightweight "climbing" bike, but what I like about it is that it is very smooth and responsive, without being too stiff and uncomfortable to ride. I rode about 6 bikes that I had narrowed down my search to, and found that riding them before buying changed a lot about what I thought my first choice would be.

As far as the Carbon wheels, for around the price difference between the two bikes, you can buy a nice set of carbon wheels. I have a set of older Flo wheels that were one of the earliest aluminum rim/carbon fairing wheels they made. They were early to the focus on the aero advantages of wider rims. Go to www.Flocycling.com and read some of their blogs to learn more than you ever wanted to know about carbon wheels and aerodynamics. The one thing I didn't see mentioned was whether the Emonda you are looking at has disc brakes on it. That is the one thing that would cause a slight hesitation, because carbon wheels with rim brakes can be very sketchy in the rain. If you like the ride of the Emonda, and the only reason you would go with the Giant is the carbon wheels, my advice would be to get the Emonda and then upgrade the wheels.

Swarely said:

---

So, uh, what are you going to do with the old bike? Sell it on the cheap to a guy on TexAgs? Maybe his name rhymes with barely?

---

Have to give it back to my stepdad. Already asked what he wanted me to do. Sorry.

txags92 said:

---

SteveA said:

---

Those are both 'aero' road bikes. They are built to be sleek, not comfortable. If you aren't planning on racing, neither of these bike is a great choice. I would look more at a giant defy. As far as wheels go, carbon is aero and stiff, neither of which makes a difference on how much chip seal you feel. A carbon wheel will not smooth out bad roads. A carbon frame and bars can help though.

---

The Emonda is not an aero road bike. The Madone fills the aero slot in Trek's lineup. I have a 2015 Emonda SL6 and I love it. The Emonda is supposed to be Trek's lightweight "climbing" bike, but what I like about it is that it is very smooth and responsive, without being too stiff and uncomfortable to ride. I rode about 6 bikes that I had narrowed down my search to, and found that riding them before buying changed a lot about what I thought my first choice would be.

As far as the Carbon wheels, for around the price difference between the two bikes, you can buy a nice set of carbon wheels. I have a set of older Flo wheels that were one of the earliest aluminum rim/carbon fairing wheels they made. They were early to the focus on the aero advantages of wider rims. Go to www.Flocycling.com and read some of their blogs to learn more than you ever wanted to know about carbon wheels and aerodynamics. The one thing I didn't see mentioned was whether the Emonda you are looking at has disc brakes on it. That is the one thing that would cause a slight hesitation, because carbon wheels with rim brakes can be very sketchy in the rain. If you like the ride of the Emonda, and the only reason you would go with the Giant is the carbon wheels, my advice would be to get the Emonda and then upgrade the wheels.

---

Yeah the price delta in those two from my first post is pretty much entirely the carbon wheels on the Giant. I don't recall if the Trek has disc brakes or not, I'll look that up. Right now I'm glad I've got some time before I want to pull the trigger. There's several options I want to check out before buying. I didn't ride the Emonda because they didn't have the right size when I was there but I'll get on that and several others before buying. That by itself will be interesting given how difficult inventory has been this year. Hopefully with the new model year that problem goes away.

No worries! It was mostly a joke. Doubt I could afford it.

Check out Head Belgium plus rims. Some aero but really wide. The wide rim, low pressure trend is really cool. Low pressure makes for a nice smooth ride and proven to be faster because you eliminate wasted energy bouncing around. I think Aero rims are good for those riding 22+ mph group rides.

https://store.hedcycling.com/belgium-plus-disc-brake-clincher-700c/

Swarely said:

---

No worries! It was mostly a joke. Doubt I could afford it.

---

a swarley sighting

Dude, sign up for Waco 70.3 next year. I had to defer three times this year so decided to just reset and go a full year out.

Man, I'm doing the Chicago marathon. Not sure I can train for both. I'll think about it though.

Swarley, what size do you need? I have a medium carbon Giant tcr advanced with shimano 105 I'm about to list for $550.

I'm 6'2". Not sure what that translates to for a giant.

SteveA...I'm looking for a carbon bike for my sister if it fits...she's about 5'10". No rule 1 cuz she's old and outta shape, but has done a century in her past and I'm trying to get her back into it.

This bike is her size, if interested.

Where are you located?
Am interested, for sure

Allen, tx.
Shoot me an email. Sja7792 at hotmail.

Email sent

The short answer: yes. Carbon wheels are worth it and behind the frame, the most opportune hardware to pick up weightweenie gains.

China carbon is a wonderful thing. Farsports is a WW favorite for bang for buck. You can grab a set of Feders for just over $1.5k and tick in around 1,100g for the set and your choice of hub. Point being, factory carbon sets from the bigs isn't much of a consideration when the open market has tons of affordable upgrade options. I vote the Emonda - which did turn a bit aero for '21. However, the Madone still makes more sense for us (I'm in hill-less Houston).

Go 28mm+ tubeless @ 60 psi - and it will feel like you're floating over any road type sans gravel.

SteveA said:

---

Those are both 'aero' road bikes. They are built to be sleek, not comfortable. If you aren't planning on racing, neither of these bike is a great choice. I would look more at a giant defy. As far as wheels go, carbon is aero and stiff, neither of which makes a difference on how much chip seal you feel. A carbon wheel will not smooth out bad roads. A carbon frame and bars can help though.

---

I'll echo my teammate's thoughts here and even suggest looking at a further step: look at a gravel bike, like the Giant Revolt series. You can get considerably wider on the tires when definitely smooths out the rough roads. Plus, you have a lot more versatility of where you can ride. I ride my gravel bike more than my road bike, and even ride it quite a bit at RCP on the mountain bike trails. If you ever decide to do longer road events, such as Hotter 'n Hell, where you want narrower tires, just swap them out.

I think Gravel bikes are the ideal intro for most newer riders.

TxsAggieFn said:

---

SteveA said:

---

Those are both 'aero' road bikes. They are built to be sleek, not comfortable. If you aren't planning on racing, neither of these bike is a great choice. I would look more at a giant defy. As far as wheels go, carbon is aero and stiff, neither of which makes a difference on how much chip seal you feel. A carbon wheel will not smooth out bad roads. A carbon frame and bars can help though.

---

I'll echo my teammate's thoughts here and even suggest looking at a further step: look at a gravel bike, like the Giant Revolt series. You can get considerably wider on the tires when definitely smooths out the rough roads. Plus, you have a lot more versatility of where you can ride. I ride my gravel bike more than my road bike, and even ride it quite a bit at RCP on the mountain bike trails. If you ever decide to do longer road events, such as Hotter 'n Hell, where you want narrower tires, just swap them out.

I think Gravel bikes are the ideal intro for most newer riders.

---

Plus one on the gravel bike. I try to only ride my road bike now when I am biking with others. Gravel bike with 40 mm knobby tires is about 1.5 mph slower than the road bike, so I can't keep up on it. But it is much safer and more versatile. I don't feel as I have to worry about every little irregularity in the road, rock, pine straw, tree branch, etc. when I am on it.

Kool said:

---

TxsAggieFn said:

---

SteveA said:

---

Those are both 'aero' road bikes. They are built to be sleek, not comfortable. If you aren't planning on racing, neither of these bike is a great choice. I would look more at a giant defy. As far as wheels go, carbon is aero and stiff, neither of which makes a difference on how much chip seal you feel. A carbon wheel will not smooth out bad roads. A carbon frame and bars can help though.

---

I'll echo my teammate's thoughts here and even suggest looking at a further step: look at a gravel bike, like the Giant Revolt series. You can get considerably wider on the tires when definitely smooths out the rough roads. Plus, you have a lot more versatility of where you can ride. I ride my gravel bike more than my road bike, and even ride it quite a bit at RCP on the mountain bike trails. If you ever decide to do longer road events, such as Hotter 'n Hell, where you want narrower tires, just swap them out.

I think Gravel bikes are the ideal intro for most newer riders.

---

Plus one on the gravel bike. I try to only ride my road bike now when I am biking with others. Gravel bike with 40 mm knobby tires is about 1.5 mph slower than the road bike, so I can't keep up on it. But it is much safer and more versatile. I don't feel as I have to worry about every little irregularity in the road, rock, pine straw, tree branch, etc. when I am on it.

---

What gravel bike are you running?

Trek Checkpoint ALR 5. I upgraded the tires to go tubeless.

Kool said:

---

TxsAggieFn said:

---

SteveA said:

---

Those are both 'aero' road bikes. They are built to be sleek, not comfortable. If you aren't planning on racing, neither of these bike is a great choice. I would look more at a giant defy. As far as wheels go, carbon is aero and stiff, neither of which makes a difference on how much chip seal you feel. A carbon wheel will not smooth out bad roads. A carbon frame and bars can help though.

---

I'll echo my teammate's thoughts here and even suggest looking at a further step: look at a gravel bike, like the Giant Revolt series. You can get considerably wider on the tires when definitely smooths out the rough roads. Plus, you have a lot more versatility of where you can ride. I ride my gravel bike more than my road bike, and even ride it quite a bit at RCP on the mountain bike trails. If you ever decide to do longer road events, such as Hotter 'n Hell, where you want narrower tires, just swap them out.

I think Gravel bikes are the ideal intro for most newer riders.

---

Plus one on the gravel bike. I try to only ride my road bike now when I am biking with others. Gravel bike with 40 mm knobby tires is about 1.5 mph slower than the road bike, so I can't keep up on it. But it is much safer and more versatile. I don't feel as I have to worry about every little irregularity in the road, rock, pine straw, tree branch, etc. when I am on it.

---

That's definitely another big advantage of gravel bikes: more margin of error for debris in the road.

It's interesting that you mention the 1.5 mph difference. That's the exact number I was using to explain the difference to a friend several weeks ago.

I have a Specialized Crux, which is technically a Cyclocross bike. Being a roadie / trackie, I like quicker handling. Plus, I have the body of a gorilla, so long stem dampens some of the quick response. People with more normal leg length to torso length ratio should stick to more traditional gravel bikes.

TxsAggieFn said:

---

Kool said:

---

TxsAggieFn said:

---

SteveA said:

---

Those are both 'aero' road bikes. They are built to be sleek, not comfortable. If you aren't planning on racing, neither of these bike is a great choice. I would look more at a giant defy. As far as wheels go, carbon is aero and stiff, neither of which makes a difference on how much chip seal you feel. A carbon wheel will not smooth out bad roads. A carbon frame and bars can help though.

---

I'll echo my teammate's thoughts here and even suggest looking at a further step: look at a gravel bike, like the Giant Revolt series. You can get considerably wider on the tires when definitely smooths out the rough roads. Plus, you have a lot more versatility of where you can ride. I ride my gravel bike more than my road bike, and even ride it quite a bit at RCP on the mountain bike trails. If you ever decide to do longer road events, such as Hotter 'n Hell, where you want narrower tires, just swap them out.

I think Gravel bikes are the ideal intro for most newer riders.

---

Plus one on the gravel bike. I try to only ride my road bike now when I am biking with others. Gravel bike with 40 mm knobby tires is about 1.5 mph slower than the road bike, so I can't keep up on it. But it is much safer and more versatile. I don't feel as I have to worry about every little irregularity in the road, rock, pine straw, tree branch, etc. when I am on it.

---

That's definitely another big advantage of gravel bikes: more margin of error for debris in the road.

It's interesting that you mention the 1.5 mph difference. That's the exact number I was using to explain the difference to a friend several weeks ago.

---

I am pretty certain that is the correct difference between my two bikes on my normal neighborhood ride, as I have a lot of reference points I tracked on Strava. I was surprised how little the difference was. That normal ride is 28 miles with 2,200 feet of vertical. I would imagine the difference would be less for a flatter ride, but it would be a substantially greater difference with more vertical. However, at this point I am more interested in getting exercise and staying alive than going for the Strava KOM or other comparisons.

To answer your original question as simply as possible: "Are Carbon wheels worth the cost"...if you have the disposable income, then absolutely yes. No debate. Will they make you faster? A little. Do they ride better? Sure. But at the end of the day, this is a hobby for pretty much all of us on this board and carbon wheels are just fun as hell and feel fast, even if it's all placebo effect. For me, that was the #1 reason to get them. I already had 808's on my tri bike and I just put a set of slightly used 404's on my new road bike. Did I need the 404's? Of course not, but damn they are fun to ride, and honestly, that's the only reason I needed.

Crazy Ag 97 said:

---

To answer your original question as simply as possible: "Are Carbon wheels worth the cost"...if you have the disposable income, then absolutely yes. No debate. Will they make you faster? A little. Do they ride better? Sure. But at the end of the day, this is a hobby for pretty much all of us on this board and carbon wheels are just fun as hell and feel fast, even if it's all placebo effect. For me, that was the #1 reason to get them. I already had 808's on my tri bike and I just put a set of slightly used 404's on my new road bike. Did I need the 404's? Of course not, but damn they are fun to ride, and honestly, that's the only reason I needed.

---

Bought Flo carbon wheels last winter. Agree completely with this post. Do it if you have the disposable income and want to. Not really something that can be justified with logic.