carbon race-frame

"atb-er" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I'm considering to change from a steel race-frame to a carbon one. What are in general the
advantages of carbon frame compared with steel (apart from weight)? And are there any
disadvantages of using carbon? A TREK 5200 looks good to me. What are the experiences with this
frame/bike??

Gerard

See: roadbikereview.comroadbikereview.comOpen ↗

I don't wan't to start another materials debate, but try to imagine what it's like to build and ride
a steel framed bike that weighs 16 lb. (frame
3.2) and listen to the constant "anything is lighter than steel" stuff from people riding heavier
non-ferrous bikes. Once a bike is "light enough", ride characteristics should take over. For
my entry into non-ferrous frame building, I chose Dedacchi's Black box rear triangle. Carbon
is the only material that can put more stiffness (at a weight savings) into the chainstay area
of a road bike where chainrings and tires limit the oversizing of tubes. Well designed carbon
places more plies to reinforce this highly crimped or ovalized area. Trek is stiff in this
area, but their seatstays are also super stiff leading to a harsher ride than a Calfee or the
Black box I use. If you are not a clydesdale you might consider ride quality as it may keep
you fresher in longer races as well as helping that rear tire stick in bumpy turns. I know
Lance rides one. Any of the pro bikes could take him to the podium. -- Tom Bruni Bicycles
"Where art meets science" brunibicycles.com
3.3.3420 atb-er <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I'm considering to change from a steel race-frame to a carbon one. What are in general the
advantages of carbon frame compared with steel (apart from weight)? And are there any
disadvantages of using carbon? A TREK 5200 looks good to me. What are the experiences with this
frame/bike??

Gerard

atb-er said:

I'm considering to change from a steel race-frame to a carbon one. What are in general the
advantages of carbon frame compared with steel (apart from weight)? And are there any
disadvantages of using carbon? A TREK 5200 looks good to me. What are the experiences with this
frame/bike??

Gerard

I don't think it's the low weight as much as the smooth ride. My Trek 5200 is very light but far
from the lightest bike around, including steel frames I believe. However I do love it and that's
where it's at I guess. Oh yes I forgot to say that when I jump on the pedals in a pack sprint she
really flies, or when I need to close a gap how effortless it is and................ Ok I'm 53 and
the bike makes me feel like 20 😉 If I ever trade her in it will be for a Madonne frame.

--
Perre

You have to be smarter than a robot to reply.

"Bruni" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I don't wan't to start another materials debate, but try to imagine what it's like to build and
ride a steel framed bike that weighs 16 lb. (frame
3.2) and listen to the constant "anything is lighter than steel" stuff from people riding heavier
non-ferrous bikes.

We all know good and light frames can be made from many different materials. And any frame that
allows a safe, good riding bike to meet the minimum weight rule of 6.8kg (or whatever) is "light
enough." I've seen min. weight bikes with off the rack 853 frames.

Quoted message said:

Once a bike is "light enough", ride characteristics should take over. For my entry into
non-ferrous frame building, I chose Dedacchi's Black box rear triangle. Carbon is the only
material that can put more stiffness (at a weight savings) into the chainstay area of a road
bike where chainrings and tires limit the oversizing of tubes. Well designed carbon places
more plies to reinforce this highly crimped or ovalized area.

This is true, composites do allow more flexibility with regard to shapes.

Quoted message said:

Trek is stiff in this area, but their seatstays are also super stiff leading to a harsher ride
than a Calfee or the Black box I use.

If you've designed this frame with such care, then perhaps you could tell us how much vertical
compliance there is for a certain load, vs. a Trek frame. Numbers please...

Matt O.

Bruni said:

I don't wan't to start another materials debate, but try to imagine what it's like to build and
ride a steel framed bike that weighs 16 lb. (frame
3.2) and listen to the constant "anything is lighter than steel" stuff from people riding heavier
non-ferrous bikes.

16 lb steel bikes are hardly new, they were done for example in the mid 1940's by Alex Singer. More
recently, r.b*'s own Todd Kuzma put together a Heron road bike of about that weight.

Quoted message said:

Once a bike is "light enough", ride characteristics should take over. For my entry into
non-ferrous frame building, I chose Dedacchi's Black box rear triangle. Carbon is the only
material that can put more stiffness (at a weight savings) into the chainstay area of a road
bike where chainrings and tires limit the oversizing of tubes. Well designed carbon places
more plies to reinforce this highly crimped or ovalized area. Trek is stiff in this area, but
their seatstays are also super stiff leading to a harsher ride than a Calfee or the Black box
I use.

Hmm. Do you understand the concept of triangulation? And why it renders everything you've just
written moot?

Quoted message said:

If you are not a clydesdale you might consider ride quality as it may keep you fresher in
longer races as well as helping that rear tire stick in bumpy turns. I know Lance rides one.
Any of the pro bikes could take him to the podium.

Precisely. He rides a Trek because he is paid to do so, not because it's a necessarily better bike.

Have recently changed from Steel to Carbon and have no regrets.

The carbon ride is far more comfortable and it sprints & climbs better. Sure the design may be why this is so but I would not go back to steel in a hurry following this experience.

In article said:

"Bruni" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I don't wan't to start another materials debate, but try to imagine what it's like to build and
ride a steel framed bike that weighs 16 lb. (frame
3.2) and listen to the constant "anything is lighter than steel" stuff from people riding
heavier non-ferrous bikes.

We all know good and light frames can be made from many different materials. And any frame that
allows a safe, good riding bike to meet the minimum weight rule of 6.8kg (or whatever) is "light
enough." I've seen min. weight bikes with off the rack 853 frames.

What kind of durability does a 3.2-pound steel frame have? You can slice it any way you like, but
that little metal in that structure is going to be very close to its design limits, probably closer
than carbon fibre or even aluminum.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Once a bike is "light enough", ride characteristics should take over. For my entry into
non-ferrous frame building, I chose Dedacchi's Black box rear triangle. Carbon is the only
material that can put more stiffness (at a weight savings) into the chainstay area of a
road bike where chainrings and tires limit the oversizing of tubes. Well designed carbon
places more plies to reinforce this highly crimped or ovalized area.

This is true, composites do allow more flexibility with regard to shapes.

Quoted message said:

Trek is stiff in this area, but their seatstays are also super stiff leading to a harsher ride
than a Calfee or the Black box I use.

If you've designed this frame with such care, then perhaps you could tell us how much vertical
compliance there is for a certain load, vs. a Trek frame. Numbers please...

Hear hear,

--
Ryan Cousineau, [email hidden] sfu.ca~rcousineOpen ↗ President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If you are not a clydesdale you might consider ride quality as it

may

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

keep you fresher in longer races as well as helping that rear tire stick

in

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

bumpy turns. I know Lance rides one. Any of the pro bikes could take him

to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the podium.

Precisely. He rides a Trek because he is paid to do so, not because it's a necessarily
better bike.

That's only part of the story. Keep in mind that most of the Peloton is riding custom framesets, not
the stock stuff you & I can buy in a shop. Lance, on the other hand, rides absolutely stock frames
(aside from the glued-on tabs for number plates). Further, as much as we'd all insist he could win
the TDF on a Schwinn from WalMart, the truth is that he's anal about what he rides and how it
performs (and his contract is different from everyone else's as US Postal; he can pick and choose
whatever he wishes, and if he thinks something will give him an edge, even the tiniest little bit,
he'll go for it).

The rest of the story? TREK will go to extremes to keep Lance happy, so they built two new bikes for
him this year, both of which are now stock models- the redesigned 5900, and the semi-aero "stylized"
Madone. WIthout Lance, it's likely that neither of those bikes would exist. But the engineers came
up with them, Lance approved them for use in the TDF, and the rest is history.

Well, even that's not the entire story. The 5900? That bike wasn't originally in the plans for '04.
The Madone was to be the high-end product, basically replacing it. But for the TDF, they came up
with a revised 5900 that dropped another quarter pound from its weight, a secret weapon if Lance
wanted to use it. Had Lance not used it in the TDF, the bike would have most likely gone away (which
would have simplified marketing considerably!). But Lance did use it, most notably in the Luz
Ardiden stage, because it was lighter than the Madone (and also because he's a bit superstitious and
treats the 5900 in the same manner a baseball player might have a favorite bat- he's won a of
significant races on the 5900, so it's his go-to machine).

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles chainreactionbicycles.comchainreactionbicycles.comOpen ↗

David Storm said:

See: roadbikereview.comroadbikereview.comOpen ↗

Nothing like reviews posted by anonymous posters who may not have actually touched a product.

I like the ones that read like this "The Trek 1000 rode much harsher than my HP40 and the 8 speed
Sora group was a detriment, Record is much better."

A suggestion to the OP. RIDE as many bikes as YOU can. Good bike shops will hook you up for real
demo rides, not just around the parking lot.

The bike isn't in stock? Ask!! Many manufacturers have demo bikes that float around. These bikes can
be brought in for you to do real-world rides. Getting them may take some time, don't expect to get
it tomorrow. Some of the bikes may even be the sales reps personal rides. The demos may not have the
exact group you want, but you will get an excellent idea of the fit and ride of a specific bike.

Barry