Felt B16 2011 good first tri-bike?

Well, I JUST started with the aerobars, so I should be good to go in 3-4 months of practice. 

I have the compact with the wider jumps because I live in Vegas with lots of steep up and downhills and I'm starting out this year.  The HIM will be hilly.  After the HIM I should have enough fitness to go to a standard and smaller jumps (which I already have the crank and cassette, it's the one that came with the bike that I've kept) and Texas is flat, so no need for compact/wide.

Stay with compact even if you race IMTX because you will still be living and training in Vegas, right? Only about the top 10% of bike splits or less in tris should be on a standard crank.

Like everyone has said get a fit first.

Felt brand tri bikes are long and low which means they have longer top tube and front end is low.  If you are able to ride in your aero bars for just a mile, doubt a long and lean tri bike would be ideal. They tend to fit folks with longer torso relative to legs. I had a Felt set up for me with a highly reputable fitter when I looked for my new bike. I was on the edge of it fitting and no room to make adjustments as it was to long for me.

DanielG - 2012-06-08 6:28 AM Fit is the key to a tri bike. Get that first. While you're waiting for it, go take a look at the Felt Mafia thread and see if people think the B16 is a good tri bike

you know...I don't think anyone mentioned the B16 in that thread

The only reason I would go to standard would be because I view the crank and the cassette as pairs, so I'll leave the compact crank in and just switch back to my narrower cassette.  I do want it for the narrower jumps, I like to have lower jumps but I need the wider range in this type of terrain, so since the HIM is here I'll leave this cassette for here and switch over the cassette for texas.

I have a VERY short torso and long legs, most of my height (5'4") is legs.  Someone shorter than me will actually be taller if we're sitting down, that's how long my legs are and how short my torso is.

I can post my bike size when I get home, but I replaced the stem with a longer one.  It's not perfect, but serviceable.  I will definitely get a fit first, and I'm sure I'll get comfortable in aero by December

I am certainly not a fitter, but if this is the case, Felt is probably not the best choice for you.  They are generally best for people with longer torsos.  Cannondale, Scott of Blue might be better choices.

I would also recommend a compact crank.  You will not be able to swap cassettes to get the same lower end range that a Compact will give you (unless you are also looking at bikes with 650 wheels).  You can play around with Mike Sherman's Gear Calc to see the differences.

I have a Felt B16.  Really like it.  I did have to switch out the saddle.

I've not had any experiences with any other tri bikes other than what I tested.  

Might want to look around at prices.  You should be able to pick up a 2011 for less than $2000 if you decide to go that way.

same price range but IMO not a comparable frame/drive train etc. Alu (I know it's a great Alu frame) vs. Carbon and Apex vs Ultegra

The Speed Concept 2.5 is however, very comparable to the S22 from Felt ($1699)

Both Speed Concept and S22 have superb Alu frames and Apex drive train.

Back to OP, from the further discussion since I last viewed I would have to agree Felt may not be the best fit if you are all leg :-) 

A friend rides a QR, the top tube seems shorter, and I think the Kilo is in the ball park money wise.

x2.  Deb, your logic is actually wrong.  Given the same cassette, compact actually has smaller jumps.  Standard provides a higher top end (as well as a higher low end), which for most mere mortals, is outside of our fitness ability.

If it was more available, I would actually suggest that more triathletes go to even smaller chainrings...like 47/32.  People have too big of an ego to accept it though.

A fit can take a couple of forms, some stores have fit machines, or fit bikes of varying varieties that they will use to establish the correct setup. 

Bikes obviously have a range of body dimensions within the size, so a 58 Felt will fit more than my reach/torso/leg etc with the adjustability.  But there are limits to that, so you will have an initial assessment where you will no doubt be given an idea of what frame size/dimensions can be adjusted to your size/shape/weight.  

Once you purchase the bike, you can then have the shop do a true fit, they will optimize the bike set up for you, make it as optimal for racing while listening to you for optimum ride comfort.  Then any decent fitter should let you come back after a ride in period to adjust the setup with your feedback.

Different fit systems exist, if you google F.I.S.T fit system it will explain on the site that shall not be named all about that Tri specific fit system.

If you intend to purchase the bike at the shop you get the fit done you can often pay for the fit and have the price taken off the bike price.  I did on mine, and I know a lot of others do, so you perhaps don't have to worry about the fit cost being over the bike cost.

It's a very good investment, if you're dropping $2k on a bike, trust me you want to enjoy time in the saddle.

I've seen the Felt B16 2001 as cheap as $1300, though, I think a fit + online order would still be cheaper than buying it at the store.  Now if I can find a store that services it for free ha (do they do that like with cars?).

I'm still a ways off and dropping weight, I'll do it around end of October and spend November and December looking at bikes.

Thanks!

I'm so bummed the Felt is not a good fit   It was a great carbon-based tri bike for the money.  Recommendations for us leggy folks?  The QR Kilo is aluminum-based.  So is the Speed Concept.

Compact crank, narrower cassette, thanks   Since I replaced them both they stayed a combo in my head.  I won't switch it until after my HIM which is here in the hills, I think a narrower cassette would fit Texas better than Vegas.

I wonder if I can't comfortably get in aero because of the short torso, I know the fit is not perfect with just grabbing the handlebars even with the longer stem.

How much difference would there be between a higher end aluminum based frame make against a low end carbon frame??  I would assume the components would be traded off against each other too fit into the price bracket??

Personally I would rather an ally frame with more solid components.  The difference in weight could be more than made up by getting lighter wheels further down the line.

Take a look at the Speed Concept 2.5 as someone earlier suggested. Yes, it's an alum frame, but that frame has the same aero design as the much more expensive versions of the Speed Concepts. For a fraction of the $$ you get the benefits of a lot of the research and design that was spent by Trek. If the geometry fits you then you will have an excellent bike for less than $2,000.

In the event itself, the carbon or aluminum frame won't make a difference for most people asking this question.  During the high volume training for an IM, the carbon frame may be easier on you requiring less recovery time.  In the end, it's probably just a matter of preference.

Regarding swapping out crank and cassette, my local tri store did this for me for free.  I was given credit for the saddle.