2010 Motobecane Grand Sprint Apex review

Motobecane Grand Sprint Apex

After 2-1/2 years and over 5,000 miles I think it's time to do a review of my 2010 Motobecane Grand Sprint Apex.  I live at the top of a 400' climb and at my age (somewhere north of 50), it was getting hard to climb that hill on my mid-80s vintage 10-speed.  I decided I needed something lighter than 30 lbs. and with lower gears.  Fortunately, the SRAM Apex had just started making its way to the marketplace.  With a 32-tooth rear and a 36-tooth front, I was getting the lowest gear ratio available in a  compact double road bike.  Not mountain bike low, but definitely better than the 28-42 on my KHS 10-speed.  At 6' 5", I'm a tall guy (and at 215 lbs., a Clydesdale at that), so getting a bike to fit and be strong enough was no small task.

I contemplated going with a local bike shop's (LBS) offering, but almost nobody had an Apex-equipped bike available yet.  BikesDirect.com, the mail-order dealer for Motobecane in the USA, had the Grand Sprint Apex on their website, with a pre-order price of $899.00.  It looked like a great deal, so I decided that I'd try being my own mechanic and ordered one in the largest frame size they had available - 62cm.

After a few impatient weeks of waiting until they got their first shipment, my shiny white bike showed up in early September 2010.  I think it took about an hour to assemble from box to first ride, with only a few hand tools required (Allen wrenches, an adjustable wrench and screwdrivers, IIRC).

First Impressions

The most immediate impression I had was that this bike had a different geometry than my mid-80s KHS 10-speed.  I had to lay out a bit more (not great for my back) and it felt a bit weird to be gripping the drops so far forward.  I wound up turning the Ritchey stem over, which raised the handlebar height about an inch, and also rotate the bars so that the brifter hoods were higher in the air.  Aaahh, much more comfortable...

After a few rides, some other impressions came to light:

• This bike is light - even in the 62cm frame size, it weighs almost exactly 20 lbs. (as measured by an electronic luggage scale) with pedals and a water bottle cage attached.  I was used to 30+ lbs., so this bike was much easier to pedal fast on level ground and much quicker to react when turning.  I wouldn't call it twitchy, just really quick.
• Originally, I thought the Skye Racing Turbo seat didn't have enough padding for long rides, but after using it for 6 months, I was convinced otherwise.  I'm still using it, and it's been on a number of 50+ mile rides.  It gets a little uncomfortable after 3+ hours in the saddle, but I suspec they all do...
• The brakes worked really well.  That was one of the problems with my KHS - the old side-pull brakes couldn't be adjusted to stop well and yet not rub on the rim when not braking.  So you had to either settle for constant rubbing, or long stopping distances.  The SRAM brakes stopped short and true.
• The Vuelta XRP Pro wheels were really true.  I'd never been on a bike which had such true wheels.  And they spun forever... (and they're still true, and still spin forever, BTW)

What's gone wrong

There has to be a downside (or three), right?  For me, not really.  Here's what I've had to modify/fix/change/repair in the past 2-1/2 years and 5,500 miles:

• Spokes - I broke a spoke on the rear wheel at about 3,000 miles.  A word of advice - contact the team at BikesDirect.com and ask what size spokes are on the bike.  I measured, but got the wrong size (twice) before I learned that one.  BikesDirect.com sells replacement spokes for these wheels, but few others do.  They're a black, flat-sided "aero" spoke - not widely used.
• Derailleur hanger - I dumped the bike in January.  Seemed like a pretty innocuous crash, only doing about 10 MPH and I just kinda "slipped" off the side with the front wheel hit a chunk of asphalt when I was riding no-handed.  But it bent the aluminum derailleur hanger (which, I've since found out is designed to bend/break in order to protect the frame from damage).  I was able to straighten out the hanger and adjust the rear derailleur back into alignment.  But just a week ago, I realized that the bolt which holds the hanger to the frame had come completely off and was lost.  Apparently these are typically bike-specific.  I e-mailed BikesDirect and was told that they use a "single-speed chainring bolt" to attach the hanger to the frame, which should be widely available.  I checked 5 local bike shops - none had them!  So now I have some on order from the 'net.  By the way, BikesDirect does sell replacement derailleur hangers, in case you crash badly and the hanger does its job by sacrificing itself to save your frame.  $20.99 is the current price.
• Tires - The stock Vittoria Zaffiro IIs lasted about 1,800 miles with a Clydesdale riding on them.  I liked them, but decided to try some others.  Suffice to say that as I type this, both tires on the bike are Zaffiro IIs again.  There are doubtless better tires out there, but these are inexpensive (<$20.00 each) and last well.  They could have better puncture resistance, though.
• Tubes - gone through many, due to punctures.  But it's not the bikes fault...

That's pretty much it.  No broken cables, no broken chains.  The seat's still working fine, the bar tape is still OK.  Oh, just a couple of nits to pick...

• The front derailleur occasionally mis-aligns the chain - usually by putting it over the top of the big ring.  It's not tough to put back, just annoying when it happens.
• White paint is tough to clean and shows everything.  But I like the paint scheme, so I have no plans to change it.

In the end, if I ever decide to get another bike, I'll put BikesDirect and Motobecane way up on my list.  I've been impressed with both.

 

No I'm not a BikesDirect shill...

It seems like in almost every thread you read that has a positive review of a Motobecane bike, someone accuses the reviewer of being a BikesDirect employee or a shill for the company.  I can assure you that I'm neither.  If I don't like something, I'll tell you.  Heck, I wish the bike was available in a 64 cm frame.  I wish it was 2 lbs. lighter and $200 cheaper.  But the level of components you get for the price you pay just can't be beat, in my opinion.  You just have to feel comfortable with dealing with mail-order and assembling your own bike.  The choice is yours... 

Update: June 2014

Another year on, and I'm still completely satisfied with the bike.  I managed a 70+ mile ride on it in May of 2013 (with over 4,500 feet of climbing), my longest ride ever. I fell in October of last year (my fault, not the bike's) and did some damage to my back, so my riding has been somewhat curtailed since then.  But I'm now up to over 6,900 miles on the Motobecane.  No additional parts have been replaced other than those mentioned above (and a tire and a few tubes of course!).  In particular, I'm still on the original chain, brake pads and shifter & brake cables.

Update: November 2017

This will probably be my last update, since I'm no longer riding anywhere near as much as I have been the past 7 years or so.  But the Grand Sprint Apex now has 10,000 miles on it and is still on the original chain, brake pads and shifter & brake cables.  Here's a list of everything I've replaced in those 10,000 miles:

• Rear derailleur hangar (broke when I fell, doing its job and saving the derailleur itself)
• SRAM Apex idler pulleys - both cracked at about the 6-year point
• A few spokes - mostly because I kept hitting potholes at high speed   B-(
• Lots of tires and tubes

I've been particularly impressed with the Vuelta XRP Pro rims - even with the banging they've taken, they've remained remarkably true, with only minimal truing needed after breaking spokes.

If I were going to replace anything else, it would probably be: a) the seat, as the foam is getting a bit squished down and just isn't as comfortable anymore (but then, it might just be my years catching up to me), b) the grip tape and c) the small chainring in front (it's gotten a LOT of use and some of the teeth are getting kinda worn).

In all, I'd definitely score the Grand Spring Apex a 9+ out of 10, both for value and durability.

Happy riding!

Cree 60w warm white LED review and comparision

Background

We've been using CFL bulbs for a number of years.  The good new about CFLs is that they use less electricity than incandescent light bulbs - typically about 1/4 as much.  Their pricing is less than LEDs today, but still more than incandescents.  But they have a number of disadvantages, too:

• The quality varies greatly from brand to brand.  The off-brands may be cheaper, but typically exhibit most of the bad points listed below.  And even the top-tier brands exhibit some.
• They're slow to reach full brightness - often taking a minute to more than 10 minutes(!) to get close to full brightness.
• They get dimmer with age.  The cheap brands in particular seem to lose about 1/3 of their brightness after a couple of years.
• Their lifetime is significantly shortened by repeated on/off cycles.  Yes, they may last 25,000 hours if left on all the time, but in a room where they're turned on & off a lot (a bathroom, for example), they might last half as long, if that.
• They contain mercury, which makes them a hazardous material and thus they require special procedures for disposal.
• Early CFLs were very "cool" - they had a color temperature in 5,000° Kelvin range, so their light had a distinctive bluish cast, unlike incandescents, which are typically much "warmer" (3,000° Kelvin or so) and cast a more yellowish light.  Current CFLs are available with a "warmer" tone to them, but you have to look for them.
• Early CFLs were not usable in dimmers.  In fact, they would typically be destroyed by such use. There are special "dimmable" CFLs available now, but they're typically more expensive than the non-dimmable units and are often not "full range dimmable", meaning that if you try to dim them all the way, they'll typically turn off at around 40% brightness.

So with all of that in mind, I've been looking at alternatives.  LEDs are a better technology, IMHO - hazardous material-free, even more energy conservative than CFLs and most are dimmable.  But they've typically been pretty expensive ($30-$40 for 60 watt equivalents, $50+ for 100 watt equivalents).  Because they typically need heatsinks to cool their electronics, they've often been designed in unusual shapes, many of which are either aesthetically displeasing, or won't fit in many places where A-type incandescents do - table lamps with harps or lampshades which clip onto the bulb, for example.  Early CFLs had similar issues, but most are now packaged to be closer in size to traditional A bulbs.

Cree 60 watt equivalent LED

Cree just introduced a line of inexpensive 40- and 60-watt equivalent LED A-style light light bulbs about a month ago.  What makes them relatively unique in the market is their price.  Home Depot is selling them for $9.97 for the 40-watt and $12.97 for the 60-watt.  They've been getting good reviews elsewhere on the 'net, so I rode down to my local Home Depot and picked one up to try.  I pulled a couple of CFLs out of lamps (one 60-watt equivalent, one 100-watt equivalent) as well as a 60-watt incandescent to serve as the "standard candle".

The bulbs used in this comparison - L-R:
GE 26w dimmable CFL, Generic 20w CFL,
Cree 9.5w LED, GE Long Life 60w incandescent

Statistical comparison

Lighting technology comparison

Type of bulb	Equivalent Incandescent watts	Measured Watts	Measured VA	Measured Power Factor
GE Long Life White 60 watt incandescent	60	57	57	.99
GE 26w Dimmable CFL	100	25	36	.67
Generic 20w CFL	60	20	40	.50
Cree 9.5w Dimmable LED	60	8	10	.74

As you can see, the energy consumption of the LED is less than half of either CFL and only 1/7 of the incandescent!  You can also see by the Power Factor rating that the generic CFL is of inferior quality to the brand-name unit.  It's basically less efficient.

Now on to what you want to see - the pictures.  What about light quality?  Color?  Intensity?  All of the shots below were taken with a Canon EOS T3i set to manual exposure, 1/125 at F4.5 to ensure that they are as comparable as possible.

Pictures

Floor lamp

GE Long Life White 60 watt incandescent

GE 26 watt dimmable CFL
(100 watt equivalent)

Cree 9.5 watt dimmable LED
(60 watt equivalent)

You can probably see that the 100-watt equivalent CFL is somewhat brighter than either 60-watt lamp, but the color of the LED more closely matches that of the incandescent.  All were roughly similar in color temp - I'd call it "warm white", probably in the 2,800°-3,200° K range.

Table lamp

Cree 9.5 watt dimmable LED
(60 watt equivalent)

Generic 20 watt CFL
(60 watt equivalent)

In a table lamp (sans shade), the light color and intensity is very close between the two 60-watt equivalent energy saving lights.  But I found it easier to replace the harp with the LED bulb due to its more conventional shape.

LED light dispersal

By stopping down the camera lens, I was able to get a better idea of the light dispersal characteristics of the Cree LED.  As you can see, there's considerably less output from the top (and bottom), making it a less-suitable candidate for spot or downlight applications.  It's ideal for table lamps, where most of the light should come out of the side of the bulb.  

Light dispersal of Cree LED
Note band of light in center, dropoff at top and bottom

Dimmability

I tested the Cree LED against the GE dimmable CFL in a wall sconce controlled by a Lutron wall dimmer switch.  The CFL dimmed about 40% before going completely dark when the dimmer slider was at about the 30% mark.  The LED kept getting dimmer throughout the range of the dimmer slider.  In addition, with the dimmer at its lowest level, I was able to turn off the LED and then turn it back on, while the CFL stayed dark when the switch was toggled.

Summary

I've only had the LED for a couple of hours now - not really enough to make a good comparison, but the combination of energy efficiency, dimmability, relatively low cost and lack of hazardous materials make the Cree seem like a winner.  I'll probably pick up a six-pack on my next run to Home Depot.

One More Thing...

I have nothing to do with any company mentioned other than as an interested consumer.  And in that vein, there's another technology on the horizon that may also prove a lighting game-changer.  It's called ESL (Electron-Stimulated LuminescenceTM) and the company closest to commercialization is VU1 with their 65-watt floodlight replacement.  They hope to have product in the marketplace later this year.  I have an application, so I'll likely pick up one as soon as I can.  If you know of other good lighting products, feel free to leave a comment!