Battle of the frame materials. The debate rages on

[Hmmmmm]

Regarding first message....

I didn't know the CAAD9 was built in the US - interesting.

Regarding frame materials - though each material has its own unique qualities, I believe design, engineering, and build affect the ride and characteristics as much as the material. You can take an extremely stiff frame and build it up with wheels, tires, seat, seatpost, etc, to soften the ride. Yes, some frames flex more than others and some are stiffer, but I believe the engine is still the dominating factor as long as the frame is of decent quality. I own a Moots Vamoots, and it is definitely not the stiffest frame out there - I weigh in at around 155 to 160 lbs and on my rides I have no problem keeping up, if not out-riding, others who have much more expensive and stiffer carbon and other frames. If I wanted a lighter frame, I would just lose 5 pounds. Anyways, just my opinion and 1.9999999 cents worth

What are other entry level or relatively affordable quality frames made in the states?

 

[Sheltowee]

I have a Giant TCR 0, Cervelo Soloist and a CAAD9. I like the CAAD9 best. I know it's stiffer and I like the way it handles; and I much prefer the conventional frame of the Cannondale to the other two.

 

[Wallace]

I really don't understand what all the fuss about titanium frames is about--other than that they are bullet-proof. I've had two of them, a Lightspeed and a Merlin Extra-Light, and they were both punishing frames, if very light. The Merlin was the worst piece of cr@p I've ever ridden--the paint lines on the road felt like speed bumps. I know you can lower the tire pressure or use wider tires, but one of the joys of riding a good bike is narrow tires pumped up to 120 or so--the bike rides and responds like a dream then. Sure, you can lower the pressure, but then the wheels are sluggish, and where's the joy in that? Right now my main bike is a Ridley Helium, and it just smoothes out the roughest pavement. It doesn't matter what tire pressure I have on it.

 

[richwagmn]

Sure, not even counting any of the other parts, it's all about the shoes. Even going from a 23mm wide tire on the road to a 28mm makes a huge difference in ride quality regardless of frame material.



Almost as nice as a Moots, I'll take it. What do you think about their Magnesium road bike? Weird.. I thought you were the guy with the all Moots stable for some reason.

Why I ride 25s. Even that's a big difference from 23s. But I do get comments from people asking why my tires look so big?

 

[Black Dog]

I really don't understand what all the fuss about titanium frames is about--other than that they are bullet-proof. I've had two of them, a Lightspeed and a Merlin Extra-Light, and they were both punishing frames, if very light. The Merlin was the worst piece of cr@p I've ever ridden--the paint lines on the road felt like speed bumps. I know you can lower the tire pressure or use wider tires, but one of the joys of riding a good bike is narrow tires pumped up to 120 or so--the bike rides and responds like a dream then. Sure, you can lower the pressure, but then the wheels are sluggish, and where's the joy in that? Right now my main bike is a Ridley Helium, and it just smoothes out the roughest pavement. It doesn't matter what tire pressure I have on it.

Well, lowering tire pressure on rough roads makes you faster! It is less of an energy loss for the tire to deform that for the bike to lift or the frame to flex. All the research shows this and the laws of physics agree. Lower pressure reduces rolling resistance, it is not about less fatigue etc... Look at the data, for most road conditions lower pressure is better and a 25c tire rolls faster than a 23c tire. On the track, with a perfectly smooth surface then more pressure is better.

 

[usedtobefast]

Why I ride 25s. Even that's a big difference from 23s. But I do get comments from people asking why my tires look so big?

the ladies often compliment the size of my "tires"...

 

[r.avens]

Carbon, Aluminum, or Steel? Make yourself heard.

Ti, if it wasn't mentioned in a subsequent thread. I ride a steel Bianchi, would like a slightly lighter frame and that can withstand the neglect that I am often capable of (as in, moisture/wetness).

If I get below 190# - and no that won't happen anytime soon, I'll probably spring for either a custom habanero or maybe a lynskey if I can negotiate the price within reason of the hab.

I don't race andeven if I did, I wouldn't be entering to win, so a nice cushy road frame that could handle some light touring or randoneurring.

 

[r.avens]

Why I ride 25s. Even that's a big difference from 23s. But I do get comments from people asking why my tires look so big?

I wish 25's were more widespread. I love my fortezza se's (I am cheap as siht), last forever, and a lot mfr's say there is a 25, but the stores seem to not stock them. It ain't so much about speed as comfort.

 

[r.avens]

the ladies often compliment the size of my "tires"...

The chamois makes them look bigger. That's science, Pal! You can look it up....

 

[flyor64]

Looks good, it's just that I've accumulated enough Asian made frames over the years that everything I eat is starting to taste like rice noodles. I'm sure that Jabberwocky it's a great rig, but all those companies I listed, well, except for the Rocky are all small shop custom USA built. Plus I have some friendship ties to Soulcraft and Inglis, gotta support the fam. The extreme end of the spectrum would be a Moots, all the stars would have to align and many wheels have to leave here, so I'll see what I can afford at the end of the season. It's going to be made in the USA and custom spec'd to me for sure whatever it is.

I hear ya on all of the above. For me the price was never going to be in reach so the Vassago it was...

Keep us posted on what you end up with...I, for one, will be interested.

Regardless of the frame I went with, you'll be proud to know that I did go with handbuilt wheels...and they are da sh!t

 

[slcbiker]

Carbon fiber for me. Technically, by varying the cloth, weave, resin, etc. you can make it behave exactly how you want it. No other material can claim this, as all others are basically starting out as pre-fab tubes. Only aluminum even comes close in this regard.
And it's very light.

As far as fatigue life, it's far better than metals. Failures tend to be due to impacts, manufacturing flaws, or bonding flaws. But well built carbon will last longer than even Ti. A couple easily found references:
http://velonews.competitor.com/2002...ical-qa-with-lennard-zinn-carbon-forks-2_3270

http://www.calfeedesign.com/whitepaper4.htm

 

[LugHugger]

Carbon fiber for me. Technically, by varying the cloth, weave, resin, etc. you can make it behave exactly how you want it. No other material can claim this, as all others are basically starting out as pre-fab tubes. Only aluminum even comes close in this regard.
And it's very light.

As far as fatigue life, it's far better than metals. Failures tend to be due to impacts, manufacturing flaws, or bonding flaws. But well built carbon will last longer than even Ti. A couple easily found references:
http://velonews.competitor.com/2002...ical-qa-with-lennard-zinn-carbon-forks-2_3270

http://www.calfeedesign.com/whitepaper4.htm

Interesting that one of your references refers to forks and not to frames which is the substantative part of this thread. The second reference is from a carbon exponent and does not appear to name its authors or references.

Now, I'm not arguing the toss here just saying that imo neither of these references should be viewed as wholly reliable or relevant. As you say, the critical factor in carbon frame failure appears to be keeping them off the deck and the epoxy not the fibre. Still, you can't build with one and not the other.

For me, it's steel. I ride fillet brazed Spirit in a traditional 53.5 cm t/t frame and suits my needs in terms of comfort and weight for epics, centuries and sportives at an affordable 17.5lbs. I've benchmarked against aluminium and carbon but not ti. my $0.02

 

[buckwheat]

Why I ride 25s. Even that's a big difference from 23s. But I do get comments from people asking why my tires look so big?

I rode a GP 4 Season 28 way down to the threads after 6500 miles on the rear. It was usually inflated to approx 80 psi.

People were like, 'I was going to ask you about that back tire,' before I mentioned it. I took it off because is started looking so ridiculous. It still had another 500 miles in it. It was very difficult to cut or puncture with a sharp scissor. Best tire I've ridden.

If you lose any performance (rolling resistance) at all it's not much. I'm sure the cornering is much better too.

For training it's not at all wise to use narrow tires but to each his own.

 

[Bustedknuckle]

Carbon fiber for me. Technically, by varying the cloth, weave, resin, etc. you can make it behave exactly how you want it. No other material can claim this, as all others are basically starting out as pre-fab tubes. Only aluminum even comes close in this regard.
And it's very light.

As far as fatigue life, it's far better than metals. Failures tend to be due to impacts, manufacturing flaws, or bonding flaws. But well built carbon will last longer than even Ti. A couple easily found references:
http://velonews.competitor.com/2002...ical-qa-with-lennard-zinn-carbon-forks-2_3270

http://www.calfeedesign.com/whitepaper4.htm

Except it isn't built 'the way you want it', but the way some factory or distributor wants it. How it then rides is completely subjective. Then can be 'tuned' but the result may or may not be to your liking.

The devil is in the details. Carbon fiber 'cloth' is indeed very strong but all bicycle frames are then manufactured and glued, bonded together. If done well, the carbon will last forever, the glue/resin may not. In addition, few will argue that carbon does not have the 'crashworthiness' or a ti or steel bike. Dent steel or ti-ugly but not life ending. Dent or 'bruise' carbon and it is unsafe.

'Longer than ti' implies that ti or steel will have a short lifetime. 4 lifetimes for ti, 5 for carbon cloth..means little.

If ya like carbon, great but there are many materials that also make for great riding, very reliable bicycle frames. I prefer steel and ti(Waterford and Moots).

 

[Black Dog]

True about Carbon. It has amazing virtues except in the crash worthiness department. I ride a carbon frame and I am always inspecting it for any visual signs of trouble. If I ever crash it I will be worried about damage that is not detectible. Why the paranoia? Well, it is the failure mode; catastrophic. I do not want to be cruising at 50km when things fall apart. the other materials have progressive failure modes.

I have seen a lot of high end carbon bikes come apart in crashes that did not ruin their Steel, Ti or Al counterparts. They are somewhat single use in this regard, unless the damage can be repaired. I am moving to Ti (litespeed) knowing that I am not giving up much in the mass, stiffness, or ride quality of carbon but I will have a safety and durability (damage prevention) margin that Carbon can not offer. I still think that well engineered carbon will produce the best performing frame but its drawbacks are serious until they start over building carbon frames in order to provide performance and robustness and move away from the light weight obsession that forces a compromise on durability.

 

[richwagmn]

I guess I like what the mfgs are doing with carbon frames these days. Seems to be the most versatile material.

That said, a polished Ti frame is a thing of beauty and I still love looking at a lugged steel frame.

 

[ihavenolimbs]

Frame material is over-rated

For me, any bike frame that is reliable, sensibly designed, fits properly, allows an affordable 6.8 kg, UCI-legal build, and doesn't have too much surface area (frontal or side-on), is adequate for me.

Steel frames typically require more weightweenie components to build to 6.8 kg, but Ti, C-epoxy, and Al are fine for a race rig. Mg may have too many issues with corrosion, and big ugly tubes, for me though.

As mentioned earlier, tyres (and their pressures) and saddle flex are by far the most important determiners of a smooth ride.

 

[elapid]

For me, any bike frame that is reliable, sensibly designed, fits properly, allows an affordable 6.8 kg, UCI-legal build, and doesn't have too much surface area (frontal or side-on), is adequate for me.

Steel frames typically require more weightweenie components to build to 6.8 kg, but Ti, C-epoxy, and Al are fine for a race rig. Mg may have too many issues with corrosion, and big ugly tubes, for me though.

As mentioned earlier, tyres (and their pressures) and saddle flex are by far the most important determiners of a smooth ride.

Why the need to be 6.8kg? I am doubtful that grams matter so much in a bike as far as racing performance is concerned, particularly on non-mountainous courses. Especially for non-professionals. Cervelo seems to have shown that aerodynamics are also important (and I know you acknowledge this) and a number of other companies are now designing their frames along this principle with less concern for building the lightest bike possible.

Isn't "affordable 6.8kg build" an oxymoron?

 

[Wallace]

Isn't "affordable 6.8kg build" an oxymoron?

Depends on what you mean by "affordable." The truism is that the difference between a $1000 bike and a $3000 bike is huge, but between a $3000 bike and a $10,000 bike, pretty much subjective.

 

[ihavenolimbs]

Why the need to be 6.8kg?

Isn't "affordable 6.8kg build" an oxymoron?

Physics tells us:

Potential energy = mass * gravity * height

So, when climbing a 300m hill (we have a few of these around here that are used in local races), it takes about 3000 joules for each kg, to get to the top, so at a cycling power of 300 W, about 10 seconds/kg.

And when riding in a group, aero saves virtually nothing, but when the road tilts up mass is definitely important. Aero would be nice, and when riding at the front on the hilly stuff, to try to break the field into ones and two, an aero bike would save a couple of watts. But for me, 1st priority is mass. If you are a strong breakaway rider in flatter races, aero equipment could be more important for you.
(But I'm definitely an aeroweenie when evaluating TT bikes.)

For skinny climbers, like myself, deep-section wheels and aero frames have too much side-on surface area, and I get blown around too much. The ideal race frame for me would probably be a frame made from the latest steel tubesets. These can be made into very light steel frames too, and this would also have minimum surface area, front and side, but the cost is crazy.

P.S. We'll probably work out one day that the bike frames from Eddy Merckx' era were probably the best compromise of stiffness, weight, and aero. Just chuck on a SRAM Rival groupset and some HED wheels and they'd make perfect bikes!

 

[alberto.legstrong]

Physics tells us:



P.S. We'll probably work out one day that the bike frames from Eddy Merckx' era were probably the best compromise of stiffness, weight, and aero. Just chuck on a SRAM Rival groupset and some HED wheels and they'd make perfect bikes!

I sometimes think this is the dirty little secret that both marketers AND riders alike do NOT want to hear. We just
love it so much we lavish our wealth all over it for no reason other than we
love it so much.

 

[elapid]

Physics tells us:

Potential energy = mass * gravity * height

So, when climbing a 300m hill (we have a few of these around here that are used in local races), it takes about 3000 joules for each kg, to get to the top, so at a cycling power of 300 W, about 10 seconds/kg.

And when riding in a group, aero saves virtually nothing, but when the road tilts up mass is definitely important. Aero would be nice, and when riding at the front on the hilly stuff, to try to break the field into ones and two, an aero bike would save a couple of watts. But for me, 1st priority is mass. If you are a strong breakaway rider in flatter races, aero equipment could be more important for you.
(But I'm definitely an aeroweenie when evaluating TT bikes.)

For skinny climbers, like myself, deep-section wheels and aero frames have too much side-on surface area, and I get blown around too much. The ideal race frame for me would probably be a frame made from the latest steel tubesets. These can be made into very light steel frames too, and this would also have minimum surface area, front and side, but the cost is crazy.

P.S. We'll probably work out one day that the bike frames from Eddy Merckx' era were probably the best compromise of stiffness, weight, and aero. Just chuck on a SRAM Rival groupset and some HED wheels and they'd make perfect bikes!

I know the physics, but my question is why do non-professional cyclists (I know I am making an assumption here because I don't know if you are a professional or not) need to ride/race on such light bikes? The time savings are miniscule between high quality steel, titanium and carbon bikes, especially on non-mountainous courses (see http://www.smartcycles.com/bike_weight.htm).

Even more difficult to justify is the cost of saving a few grams is so astronomically high (ie, look at the cost difference between the Cervelo R3 and R3-SL, let alone componentry, wheels, ceramic bearings, carbon bottle cages, etc, etc). Hence the question is there such a thing as an "affordable 6.8kg bike"?

Also, in the professional peloton, who is racing on the lightest bikes and are they winning all the time? No.

Thor Hushovd's Cervélo TestTeam Cervélo R3 is 7.10kg.
Fabian Cancellara's Specialized S-Works Tarmac SL2 is 7.51kg.
Mark Cavendish's HTC-Columbia Scott Addict is 7.57kg.
William Bonnet's BBox-Bouygues Telecom Colnago Cross Prestige is 7.66kg.
Ben Swift's Pinarello Dogma 60.1 is 7.70kg.
George Hincapie's BMC TeamMachine SLR01 is 7.80kg.
Juan Antonio Flecha's Team Sky Pinarello KOBH 60.1 is 8.22kg.

Should Flecha have been able to beat Haussler in this year's Omloop Het Nieuwsblad if his bike weights 1.12kg more (and a full 1.42kg above the UCI limit), or even beat Boonen off the podium in this year's Paris-Roubaix when Boonen's bike is 0.71kg lighter?

 

[Black Dog]

Physics tells us:

Potential energy = mass * gravity * height

So, when climbing a 300m hill (we have a few of these around here that are used in local races), it takes about 3000 joules for each kg, to get to the top, so at a cycling power of 300 W, about 10 seconds/kg.

True with the assumption that the hill is vertical! When I climb the hills do feel vertical but somewhere past the pain, I know rationally that they are not. Mass is not as big a factor on a bike when you combine the mass of the rider. The gaps become very small indeed when gradient and total rider+bike mass is factored in. I do like you view on old school steel bikes. They do have a magical ride.

 

[ihavenolimbs]

Should Flecha have been able to beat Haussler in this year's Omloop Het Nieuwsblad if his bike weights 1.12kg more (and a full 1.42kg above the UCI limit), or even beat Boonen off the podium in this year's Paris-Roubaix when Boonen's bike is 0.71kg lighter?

On mountain stages of the TdF, specialist climbers and GC contenders typically try to have their bikes within 50 g of the 6.8 kg limit.

I think our points are simply reflecting our priorities as riders. My sprint is a pathetic 700 W, and I'm not flash at producing power anaerobically, so I have to maximise my power-to-weight advantage. This means light body, bike, clothing, shoes, helmet, ...

It all helps, even if the contribution from each part is small, the sum total of savings is useful.

And regarding an affordable 6.8 kg bike, a Scott CR1 with mid-priced, race wheels is bang on the the limit. The whole lot can be picked up for less than $4000 US. To me, that's affordable (just, still paying some of it off).

I would struggle to build a 6.8 kg Ti or steel bike for that. And there is no advantage to riding a heavier bike unless it is significantly more aero.