All-carbon frames - experience with these?

Are you looking for a totally boring common frame? Or do you want something that no one in your area or club is riding? If the prior is more your style I say go with the Tarmac. Nothing rides like it. The Trek Frames are so uncomfortable and beat up on the body. Giant has hard to fit frame sizes. Their frames just run big on most riders.

If you are looking for not so ordinary frames - Orbea has a great ride and excellent quality. When I was at Eurobike I LOVED what Cyfac and Storck had to offer, along with a company that I know nothing about, but am in love with their frames, ROI BIKE out of Italy. Also, you may want to check out LOOK Frames. They had some really nice lower end carbon frames at the show that fits your budget. I think your options are wide open on this one. Carbon is a great frame material, but the vast amount of styles and geometries is enough to make anyone's head spin. I feel for you. 🙄

ryanspeer said:

I'm hoping to be able to keep my current bike for foul-weather training and commuting, and then add an all-carbon frame (components to be decided on at a later time) for serious training and racing next year. I talked with a salesman at a great LBS near me a few weeks ago regarding the Trek OCLV lineup, Giant TCM (??) all-carbon frames, and Specialized Tarmacs. The Giants seem to be the best bang-for-the-buck although the salesman pointed out that they can be somewhat more compact than other frames (doesn't seem to be a problem to Ulrich though . . . ), the Treks are obviously far more popular and recognizable and prolific, but the Specialized Tarmacs are really catching my eye now for some reason. If I remember correctly, the salesman said the Tarmacs tend to be a little on the lighter side (maybe in regards just to the frame vs. the whole bike?) but that he wasn't a fan of the longer head tube and the higher front end that this creates. Obviously this could be compensated for somewhat with a negative rise stem.

If you had $2500 to spend on a bike, which would you choose? Any additional frames to add to the mix? Orbea? Fuji? I see the Giant frames going for comparative bargains on eBay and such, which makes me wonder why they are so much cheaper than their competitors. I'm sure I'll have more questions soon . . .

carbonguru said:

Are you looking for a totally boring common frame? Or do you want something that no one in your area or club is riding? If the prior is more your style I say go with the Tarmac. Nothing rides like it. The Trek Frames are so uncomfortable and beat up on the body. Giant has hard to fit frame sizes. Their frames just run big on most riders.

If you are looking for not so ordinary frames - Orbea has a great ride and excellent quality. When I was at Eurobike I LOVED what Cyfac and Storck had to offer, along with a company that I know nothing about, but am in love with their frames, ROI BIKE out of Italy. Also, you may want to check out LOOK Frames. They had some really nice lower end carbon frames at the show that fits your budget. I think your options are wide open on this one. Carbon is a great frame material, but the vast amount of styles and geometries is enough to make anyone's head spin. I feel for you. 🙄

Well, in reference to your question in the first paragraph, although I'd love a unique one-of-a-kind frame that you're not going to see everywhere else on the team or group ride, the realistic side of things dictate that I really don't have an unlimited budget and need to focus on performance more than anything else. Once I establish myself more in racing next year, have a bit more of a track record and more importantly the feeling that I've EARNED it, I'll upgrade to something with a bit more "bling" as they say. I'd hate to be the guy showing up to his first Cat 5 race on a bike that costs more than some people's first cars or to have the appearance of being all glitz and glamour with no performance to back it all up with. Had a guy show up to a team ride I did last weekend on a brand new tricked out Orbea, but with absolutely no riding skills to show off on the bike. The "poser" look is something I want to avoid at all costs. That being said, I'm comfortable riding something "ordinary". For now.

ryanspeer said:

Well, in reference to your question in the first paragraph, although I'd love a unique one-of-a-kind frame that you're not going to see everywhere else on the team or group ride, the realistic side of things dictate that I really don't have an unlimited budget and need to focus on performance more than anything else. Once I establish myself more in racing next year, have a bit more of a track record and more importantly the feeling that I've EARNED it, I'll upgrade to something with a bit more "bling" as they say. I'd hate to be the guy showing up to his first Cat 5 race on a bike that costs more than some people's first cars or to have the appearance of being all glitz and glamour with no performance to back it all up with. Had a guy show up to a team ride I did last weekend on a brand new tricked out Orbea, but with absolutely no riding skills to show off on the bike. The "poser" look is something I want to avoid at all costs. That being said, I'm comfortable riding something "ordinary". For now.

I would look for how individual brands of frames meet your needs in roughly this order:

1. fit
2. ride style (stiff? comfort? aero? etc...)
3. affordability (maybe this is number one, but if the first two aren't right, then who cares what it costs)
4. looks

ALL of the brands you mention are good bikes and have been ridden to various podium positions around the world--as you know it is the engine that counts.

I agree completely with John M. I am a Look fanatic though ..... :eek:

I would look for how individual brands of frames meet your needs in roughly this order:

1. fit
2. ride style (stiff? comfort? aero? etc...)
3. affordability (maybe this is number one, but if the first two aren't right, then who cares what it costs)
4. looks

ALL of the brands you mention are good bikes and have been ridden to various podium positions around the world--as you know it is the engine that counts.

I have a Giant TCR Advanced Team 06
I find it an extremely stiff frame, one of the lightest on the market, extremely short wheelbase which makes the handling what I would call "precise", it tracks from side to side very quickly (due to the short wheelbase), the compact frame and tight geometry results in a very stiff rear triangle which often causes some wheelspin when out of the saddle, but this can be cured through improved technique. There is a bit of a front wheel overlap which one needs to get used to. The forks are straight and transmit a bit of road vibration and harshess upwards, but this is a small price to play for the improved handling. If your a small to medium sized rider, you'll appreciate the increased standover height from the giant compact geometry, larger riders would find the long drop to the top tube an issue aesthectically. One small point is the difficulty in using large drink bottles with small compact frames, especially on the seat tube bottle holder.

The frame dynamics provides great stability on descents, it has great poise despite the short wheelbase, with no sign of the wobbles that some frames get. The lightness of the frame / package allows you to use a gear lower, so you end up a bit faster on the road. Some reviews have mentioned the lower bottom bracket which can result in pedal scaping when cornering aggressively, I for one have never had this happen, but this would depend on the crank length and frame size and if your doing criterium racing.

There is the usual quality Giant finish, with great attention to detail (fork tips with security tabs, replaceable rear derailleur hanger etc.). Compared to some other carbon frames I've seen there is almost a mimimalist nature to the frame joints, the bottom bracket and chainstay are very slim in comparison to the Cervelo or BMC frames , yet the stiffness is similiar under testing. Also the weave orientation under the clear coat is precisely laid so the frame looks sharp when viewed close up.

wugga said:

I agree completely with John M. I am a Look fanatic though ..... :eek:

I would look for how individual brands of frames meet your needs in roughly this order:

1. fit
2. ride style (stiff? comfort? aero? etc...)
3. affordability (maybe this is number one, but if the first two aren't right, then who cares what it costs)
4. looks

ALL of the brands you mention are good bikes and have been ridden to various podium positions around the world--as you know it is the engine that counts.

Go the Tarmac! Light and super stiff. The thing just responds when you put the power down.

And it looks MINT!

kleng said:

I have a Giant TCR Advanced Team 06
I find it an extremely stiff frame, one of the lightest on the market, extremely short wheelbase which makes the handling what I would call "precise", it tracks from side to side very quickly (due to the short wheelbase), the compact frame and tight geometry results in a very stiff rear triangle which often causes some wheelspin when out of the saddle, but this can be cured through improved technique. There is a bit of a front wheel overlap which one needs to get used to. The forks are straight and transmit a bit of road vibration and harshess upwards, but this is a small price to play for the improved handling. If your a small to medium sized rider, you'll appreciate the increased standover height from the giant compact geometry, larger riders would find the long drop to the top tube an issue aesthectically. One small point is the difficulty in using large drink bottles with small compact frames, especially on the seat tube bottle holder.

The frame dynamics provides great stability on descents, it has great poise despite the short wheelbase, with no sign of the wobbles that some frames get. The lightness of the frame / package allows you to use a gear lower, so you end up a bit faster on the road. Some reviews have mentioned the lower bottom bracket which can result in pedal scaping when cornering aggressively, I for one have never had this happen, but this would depend on the crank length and frame size and if your doing criterium racing.

There is the usual quality Giant finish, with great attention to detail (fork tips with security tabs, replaceable rear derailleur hanger etc.). Compared to some other carbon frames I've seen there is almost a mimimalist nature to the frame joints, the bottom bracket and chainstay are very slim in comparison to the Cervelo or BMC frames , yet the stiffness is similiar under testing. Also the weave orientation under the clear coat is precisely laid so the frame looks sharp when viewed close up.

Thanks for the GREAT review! That's the kind of stuff I'm looking for! Very very helpful! Stiffness is definitely what I'm looking for, but hopefully the carbon frame will still soak up a ton of bumps.

The Tarmac sounds great because of the ride comfort I keep hearing about, but I wonder how it compares against the TCR-series in terms of stiffness and weight?

Visually I like the TCR because it does'nt look over built, I like the look of rounded tubing that is not "extreme" oversized or shaped. According to the testing in the "Ride" magazine the TCR Advanced 2006 (medium) provided the following results.

0.47 mm deflection at bottom bracket junction (40kg weight on test bench)
0.20 mm deflection at head tube and top tube junction (40kg weight)
0.25 mm delfection at seat tube and top tube junction. (40kg weight)

Frame weight only tested for a medium was 0.93kg.

For the S-Works Tarmac 2005 (58cm) frame weight 1.24kg

1.52 mm deflection at bottom bracket (40kg weight)
0.86 mm deflection at head tube / top tube (40kg weight)
0.18 mm deflection at seat tube / top tube (40kg weight)

note the Tarmac tested was a bigger frame.

Its difficult to say if you could feel any difference in the stiffness, both are great bikes.

Hope this helps.

kleng said:

Visually I like the TCR because it does'nt look over built, I like the look of rounded tubing that is not "extreme" oversized or shaped. According to the testing in the "Ride" magazine the TCR Advanced 2006 (medium) provided the following results.

0.47 mm deflection at bottom bracket junction (40kg weight on test bench)
0.20 mm deflection at head tube and top tube junction (40kg weight)
0.25 mm delfection at seat tube and top tube junction. (40kg weight)

Frame weight only tested for a medium was 0.93kg.

For the S-Works Tarmac 2005 (58cm) frame weight 1.24kg

1.52 mm deflection at bottom bracket (40kg weight)
0.86 mm deflection at head tube / top tube (40kg weight)
0.18 mm deflection at seat tube / top tube (40kg weight)

note the Tarmac tested was a bigger frame.

Its difficult to say if you could feel any difference in the stiffness, both are great bikes.

Hope this helps.

The stiffness data is uncomparable because they changed stiffness measuring techniques. They measured deflection at the CRANK on the Tarmac (hence the much larger deflection) and the BB on the TCR. The Tarmac is a brilliant ride, do not underestimate it. I am currently one of two or three people inmy cycling club riding traditional geometry. I have the traditional tiny amount of protruding seatpost and everybody says 'that frame is way too big' though I am in the technically perfect position over the BB with a 100mm and 6cm drop. Not only that, my frame corners much MUCH better than the Giant I used to own, and the semi-compact before that. IMO, the Tarmac is by far the better balance of stiffness and aerodynamics, and of course comfort.

Not bagging Giant, they are great bikes, but designed for the masses.

Traditional frames are also much MUCH easier to fit, instead of buying a S M L then trying your luck.

kleng said:

Visually I like the TCR because it does'nt look over built, I like the look of rounded tubing that is not "extreme" oversized or shaped. According to the testing in the "Ride" magazine the TCR Advanced 2006 (medium) provided the following results.

0.47 mm deflection at bottom bracket junction (40kg weight on test bench)
0.20 mm deflection at head tube and top tube junction (40kg weight)
0.25 mm delfection at seat tube and top tube junction. (40kg weight)

Frame weight only tested for a medium was 0.93kg.

For the S-Works Tarmac 2005 (58cm) frame weight 1.24kg

1.52 mm deflection at bottom bracket (40kg weight)
0.86 mm deflection at head tube / top tube (40kg weight)
0.18 mm deflection at seat tube / top tube (40kg weight)

note the Tarmac tested was a bigger frame.

Its difficult to say if you could feel any difference in the stiffness, both are great bikes.

Hope this helps.

That's VERY helpful as well - thanks. Interesting that the Tarmac was 3/4 lb heavier. I wonder how much of that extra weight is taken up by the larger frame size. I believe the Giant Medium sized frame is equivalent to approximately 54cm (give or take). The deflection at the bottom bracket, head tube, etc., at first looked like a lot, but then when I realized it was measured in mm's . . . Both look impressive.

Hopefully THIS NEXT QUESTION won't be lost in this thread, but . . .

Is there a major difference between the TCR Advanced, TCR C1, C2, etc., frames? Is the C2's frame substantially heavier or is the difference (if any) pretty negligible?

ryanspeer said:

That's VERY helpful as well - thanks. Interesting that the Tarmac was 3/4 lb heavier. I wonder how much of that extra weight is taken up by the larger frame size. I believe the Giant Medium sized frame is equivalent to approximately 54cm (give or take). The deflection at the bottom bracket, head tube, etc., at first looked like a lot, but then when I realized it was measured in mm's . . . Both look impressive.

Hopefully THIS NEXT QUESTION won't be lost in this thread, but . . .

Is there a major difference between the TCR Advanced, TCR C1, C2, etc., frames? Is the C2's frame substantially heavier or is the difference (if any) pretty negligible?

kleng provided some interesting data, with the important caveat that it may be hard to detect any difference in stiffness. Would change that to "virtually impossible" to detect these lateral flex differences in the real world. Deflections of factions of 1mm (0.040 inches) just aren't going to be apparent as you ride, IMO.

Besides, from what I've read, the value of stiffness hasn't really been proven either. IAW, if two riders producing identical power were doing a TT on the two bikes compared, it's not clear which one would be ahead at the finish. We all "intuitively know" that any flex results in less power loss, but that may not be the case.

Suggest you test ride the bikes you're considering on the same course and on the same day, rather than relying on the salesmans opinions. Have him set up the seat to your measurements, and inflate tires consistently before you ride.

In the end, buy what you feel most comfortable riding, or what has the most eye-appeal, or brand appeal, from the LBS you like the most. Go with your gut feelings over just "buying the specsheet"; believe you'll be happier in the long run.

bobbyOCR said:

Traditional frames are also much MUCH easier to fit, instead of buying a S M L then trying your luck.

That is a very worthwhile concern. I don't want to end up with a frame so small that I have 12-14" of seatpost sticking out. I imagine that alone would flex like a mass-produced chromoly frame - especially as I like to climb while in the saddle.

Check out the carbon offerings from Guru as well. Beautiful finish and ride quality is outstanding.

ryanspeer said:

That is a very worthwhile concern. I don't want to end up with a frame so small that I have 12-14" of seatpost sticking out. I imagine that alone would flex like a mass-produced chromoly frame - especially as I like to climb while in the saddle.

Yeah. It is quite amusing riding behind someone on an earlier TCR composite. You get hypnotised by the swaying of the seatpost. Then you get scared that its gonna snap and drop back or pass them

I personally quite like the look of full compact frames coming from Mountain biking first. The frames just look tight light and stiff (I repeat LOOK). I like at least 6 degrees of slope.

I agree the seat post has to be strong with the amount sticking out, no point going ultra light weight. I'm surprised nobody has come out with a brand of strong parts for such applications.

ryanspeer said:

Is there a major difference between the TCR Advanced, TCR C1, C2, etc., frames? Is the C2's frame substantially heavier or is the difference (if any) pretty negligible?

I think the frame weight will be negligible, the weight difference will be in the wheels and components specificed, what will be different will be the handling of the bike as their frame geometries between the advanced and TCR range are different: The Advanced will handle faster due to the shorter wheelbase, and maybe be a little bit stiffer due to frame design.

Here are the different geometries.

You can see the Advanced has a more upright seat tube, head tube and shorter chain stays.

Seems the current thinking amongst high-end frames is to lengthen the seat tube as far as possible into an integrated seat mast design for maximum stiffness. So going with a compact frame that has a long seat post that can flex may save weight on the frame but result in lost of ride stiffness. This may or may not be important to you or even noticed at all. But I do agree with the earlier post that a finding proper fit on a "regular" frame style is much easier than a compact frame since compact frames typically come in only 3 sizes.