nbfman said:Mulling the purchase of a fancy frame to take me through the next 10 yrs, I went to the LBS recently to look at high-end carbon ones from top brands. Specifically, they had Colnago C50, Look 595, and Trek Madone 5/6. I was mainly interested in Colnago because I've heard great things from owners and have always liked the paint job. The LBS guy, however, straight out told me that the quality of carbon on Trek frames could not be matched, owing to the size of corporate investment Trek makes in eliminating voids.
I recognized the technical stuff as straight out of the Trek marketing material. But it made me wonder how much of a difference there really was in the quality of carbon (voids and anything else) for these top quality frames and on what tangible impact (susceptibility to crack over time, more weight for same stiffness, whatever else ..) the differences made. Anyone care to share what they know? I've seen cross-section photos of bad carbon tubes, where large gaps were all over the place. But what about the top-grade frames?
I'm aware that at my meager level of skill and limited time on the saddle, I will probably be happy with any of the above models, not to mention many others not listed, so long as the fit and other intangibles are right. Even so, I thought I would try to get some insight from more experienced folks out there.
Thanks for any input.
The salesman wasn't too informed. I'd wager to say that there might be some Taiwanese or Chinese factories whose investments have been at least that big. Many top brands--Specialized, Ridley, Pinarello, Colnago, Cervelo--have their bikes made in Asian factories. Trek is welcome to claim no one else can match their quality, but it's a claim that was little chance of standing up to scrutiny. Colnago's top frame, the CX-1, is made in the Far East. I'm willing to be that Ernesto wouldn't allow such a premier frame to be anything less than equal to all the rest of the best. Trek orders its CF, while Time actually makes it's own CF and CF matte....as does Giant. Maybe Giant and Time should claim the title as "Better than the Rest." Look's been on the forefront of CF frame development and production since CF came to the cycling scene, and Look has, in addition to a wealth of CF know-how and cutting edge technology, vastly more experience than Trek. Maybe Look should claim the "King of CF" title.
The truth is that there are very few badly made frames out there. Spending more money basically only gets you lower weight, flashier finishes, more exotic "features," or just more cachet. None of that makes much of a difference when pedaling. A case in point would be Pedal Force frames. They're frames from the Far East with Pedal Force decals slapped on, that are sold for that metaphorical dime. They are, universally considered to be great frames.
I ride a Look 595, but honestly, I bought it because when I rode one for a few hours, I liked the way it suited me, and also because the way 595's look really pushes all my fun buttons. These reasons are the only real reasons to buy a particular bike: you like the way it looks, and you get excited about riding it; and it fits you correctly and is a pleasure, not torture, to ride. Depending on your proclivities, such a frame could be a Pinarello Prince Carbon or a Scattante, Performance Bike's house brand. There is no reason to expect one to have a better CF layup than the other.
