Dream (bi)cycle...

[John Ranalletta]

Carbon fiber/kevlar frame members. Spendy, but really cool.

 

Frame weight? 2.75 lbs.

 

[skinny_tom (aka boney)]

Very cool!

 

Does the increased aerodynamic drag offset the weight savings?

 

Oh, at $6K for the frame, it's going to be a while. And you'd better get fenders for the Mt. Bike, can you imagine cleaning the mud out of that?

[Mister Tee]

I'm not feeling it...

[SeanC]

Bah.

 

I can appreciate the funkified aesthetics -- it would look good hanging on the wall in an engineering arts gallery -- but it's not something I'd want to ride. For starters, I don't like compact geometry frames or carbon fiber frames (virtually all CF frames are compact geometry due to manufacturing necessity). Give me an Italian steel frame with stage geometry. Like this one...

 

 

My Colnago is almost 20 years older, but except for the chromed lugs, identical. Hell, it's essentially identical to the one Eddy Merckx rode 20 years before that. Stage geometry. Columbus chromoly tubing. Comfortable riding 100+ mile days, day after day.

 

Frame weight? 3.85 lbs.

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

Does the increased aerodynamic drag offset the weight savings?

 

these guys claim it exhibits slightly LESS aero drag than a traditional tube-frame.

 

They also claim the frame only weighs in at 1.8 pounds. Apparently it depends which one we're talking about: according to this press release, the mountain bike frame is 2.6 pounds, and the road bike frame is a mere 1.8 pounds.

[SeanC]

They also claim the frame only weighs in at 1.8 pounds. Apparently it depends which one we're talking about: according to this press release, the mountain bike frame is 2.6 pounds, and the road bike frame is a mere 1.8 pounds.

 

Feh. The focus on weight savings that mfrs of carbon frame bikes place such an emphasis on is pretty ridiculous. I mean, just because you can shave off a few ounces doesn't mean you should or even would want to. Even when I was racing and in really good shape, my body weight would fluctuate up to 5 lbs during the day. (Hell, I've flushed more weight than that frame!) A couple pounds of non-rotating mass simply makes no discernible difference on a ride. The real cost of ultra-light CF bikes (besides the $$$) is that you're riding a super stiff, very uncomfortable frame, the geometry of which can not be customized for individual rider body types.

 

Now when it comes to any of the components for which rotational inertia is a factor -- wheels, hubs, cranks, tires, pedals -- that's where a few grams can make a huge difference.

[Art..]

Maybe you're right Sean. I'm similar to you, ex mountain bike racer (sport class), certified steel-head retro-grouch, and I now have the following in my garage:

 

1) Alu full suspension Santa Cruz Blur (my current race bike)

2) Reynolds 853 steel mountain bike (Jamis Dragon - my old race bike)

3) a new Specialized Carbon Roubaix road bike

 

The Roubaix is buttery smooth on long rides, and still climbs stiff and fast. The new breed of carbon bikes are tuned better and they are absolutely awesome.

 

Of course, this is all subjective, but I am a convert. I'm not saying that this wierd frame is the latest, greatest, but I can't just write all carbon bikes off anymore. (remember the Y-33 !)

 

[SeanC]

Yeah-but, with mtn bikes you've got a very different geometry, much softer and wider wheels, lower tire pressure and, on many bikes, a flippin' suspension system!

 

I've spent a few hours on a Specialized CF bike (it wasn't the Roubaix Triple, but had the same geometry with a stiffer headset and forks), and I could feel every pebble in the asphalt. It was jumpy and quick out of turns, and would probably be great for criteriums, but I couldn't see riding it for 6 hours a day.... I feel the same way about aluminum frames, which all use compact geometry too.

 

But hey, I'm old and fat now. Back when I first started racing, clipless pedals were still a few years off the horizon. Maybe if I were a young Cat II roadie again (over 20 years and pounds ago), I'd be all about CF.

[Kitsap]

Give me steel..

 

About 5 years ago Antonio Mondonico flew over from Italy and measured up a bunch of my friends and I for custom frames. The Mondonico family has been in the business since 1929 but recently sold the name to Torelli, so sad. There is no bicycle like the one that has been made to fit you.

 

http://www.torelli.com/mondonico/mndnico.html

[sgendler]

I don't buy this discomfort argument on carbon. I love the way carbon feels, and it is certainly nothing like a super stiff aluminum frame. How many stage race teams are riding the traditional steel stage frame that you are looking for, Sean? I just replaced a lugged steel frame with a carbon frame and I couldn't be happier. I bought steel after my last carbon (trek oclv) was stolen, and I've missed the ride quality. Weight doesn't really mean much for climbing under my 230 pound bulk, but I do notice when my bike is light in its handling. But light wheels, cranks, and pedals are certainly a far better place to spend money, since they rotate, and all that rotational inertia really impacts handling in the turns, too.

[SeanC]

Art described my overall position re carbon frames pretty well: old-school grouchiness. I don't like the feel of it, but admittedly the very few miles I've ridden on a carbon bike doesn't make for a fair comparison. Especially when you factor in I was riding with someone else's seat, handlebars, stem length, etc. All of which felt very awkward.

 

Most importantly (to me), I really don't like compact geometry frames. They displease my eye. They violate my aesthetic sense of what a bicycle -- especially a racing bike -- should be. They cry technology that is not needed. They solve problems that never existed. They are a compromise of their own manufacturing necessity and limitations.

 

But people pay through the nose for them, so I assume it's been good for the industry overall.

[skinny_tom (aka boney)]

They cry technology that is not needed. They solve problems that never existed. They are a compromise of their own manufacturing necessity and limitations.

 

Kind of like BMW motorcycles, eh?

[SeanC]

They cry technology that is not needed. They solve problems that never existed. They are a compromise of their own manufacturing necessity and limitations.

 

Kind of like BMW motorcycles, eh?

 

Ouch!

 

[Patallaire]

I have a Cervelo and love it, state of the art. Have ridden and raced, italian steel frames, american aluminum and now a canadian carbon frame and carbon wheels, no comparison. The ride comfort, acceleration, aerodynamic advantages in the draft and the asthetics are so superior, it would be hard to ever go back. Of course with over $9,000 invested, including all ceramic bearings, I am sure the comparison is a little jilted! That being said, if you ride a lot, you can feel the difference.

[sgendler]

They cry technology that is not needed. They solve problems that never existed. They are a compromise of their own manufacturing necessity and limitations.

 

I'm curious to hear you expand on that. For your average weekend warrior, that may well be true, but I think the superiority of modern bicycle technology is well proven in both crit-length and stage-race style events. If modern materials and geometry were so irrelevant, racers would be winning races on 20 year old race bikes they bought on craigslist for $200. A compact frame geometry might be a nod to certain limitations of the material, but if the superiority of material in other ways is enough to compensate (and I don't buy that there's inherently anything wrong with a compact geometry other than your how your aesthetic sense perceives it - in the end, it comes down to rake, trail, wheelbase, and the geometric relationship between the various human/bike interface components, and those are changing from function, not necessity).

 

What you think of as classic frame geometry is itself dictated by the capabilities steel and traditional construction techniques. As materials and capabilities of builders change, it makes absolute sense that the form itself would evolve. Otherwise, we'd all still be riding around on an ordinary.

[rob1100r]

(remember the Y-33 !)

 

 

 

An 'oldie' but a goodie! I still thrash regularly on my 'old' Trek Y11 (made in '96). Timeless in my eyes, I dig it!

[rkd]

If modern materials and geometry were so irrelevant, racers would be winning races on 20 year old race bikes they bought on craigslist for $200

 

Oops, the seller should have put in on ebay ... Have you seen the prices on "vintage" bicycle parts lately?

[SeanC]

I'm curious to hear you expand on that. For your average weekend warrior, that may well be true, but I think the superiority of modern bicycle technology is well proven in both crit-length and stage-race style events. If modern materials and geometry were so irrelevant, racers would be winning races on 20 year old race bikes they bought on craigslist for $200.

 

Three thoughts on that: 1) technology has never won a bicycle race. Technique, sure (Lemond's TT riding position with aero bars is a good example), but no one ever won a bicycle race because his frame was a pound lighter than his opponent's. Genetics, hard work and capacity for suffering win races (um, and maybe a little EPO). 2) without question, ANY of today's winning pros could win the same races by the SAME margins riding my 20-year old Colnago, Campy Record gruppo and Mavic race wheels. 3) I could sell that bike on craigslist for 10x that amount in ten minutes.

 

A compact frame geometry might be a nod to certain limitations of the material, but if the superiority of material in other ways is enough to compensate (and I don't buy that there's inherently anything wrong with a compact geometry other than your how your aesthetic sense perceives it - in the end, it comes down to rake, trail, wheelbase, and the geometric relationship between the various human/bike interface components, and those are changing from function, not necessity).

 

Bullshit. When you produce bike frames with t-shirt sizing -- i.e., Sm, Med, Lg -- it is absolutely necessary to compensate for the frame limitations, especially with the seatpost and handlebar stem lengths. These compensations are compromises that often affect performance and durability. I see a lot more bike changes in Pro/Cat I & II races these days than I ever experienced. And I'm not talking crashes, but busted head tubes and seat tubes. Seatpost lengths are just ridiculous, and while carbon fiber is very strong, at some point it gives in to the torsional forces and simply shatters. I never once saw that happen when I was racing. The seatpost/seat tube interface is so unreliable, in fact, that it had to be eliminated entirely for pro time trial bikes. But these bikes are beyond expensive, and the riding position is so specialized they can only be used for time trialing.

 

What you think of as classic frame geometry is itself dictated by the capabilities steel and traditional construction techniques. As materials and capabilities of builders change, it makes absolute sense that the form itself would evolve. Otherwise, we'd all still be riding around on an ordinary.

 

If you're seriously comparing Italian steel stage geometry frames to turn of the (previous) century big wheelers, then you have no real appreciation (or no perspective) for the sport.

[SeanC]

I have a Cervelo and love it, state of the art. Have ridden and raced, italian steel frames, american aluminum and now a canadian carbon frame and carbon wheels, no comparison. The ride comfort, acceleration, aerodynamic advantages in the draft and the asthetics are so superior, it would be hard to ever go back. Of course with over $9,000 invested, including all ceramic bearings, I am sure the comparison is a little jilted! That being said, if you ride a lot, you can feel the difference.

 

Pat, because you raced, I'll tip my hat. But I've seen quite a few people riding $9000 Cervelos to which I could only offer a $9000 chuckle.

[sgendler]

If you're seriously comparing Italian steel stage geometry frames to turn of the (previous) century big wheelers, then you have no real appreciation (or no perspective) for the sport.

 

Oh? Were high wheelers not produced precisely because it was the only way to attain the speeds necessary to be competitive in bicycle races? Did racing bikes not evolve into their current diamond form as materials and technology evolved, making safer bicycles possible without compromising speed? Isn't that why the diamond frame was originally called a safety bike? How can I not compare a modern racing bicycle (or, as you would have it, a 15 year old racing bicycle) to the high performance bicycles that came before them? My point is that it is a case of form following function, and you're arguing that we should cease the quest for improved function because it violates your sense of form.

 

And I would absolutely argue that a pro cyclist would not be competitive on 20 year old technology. The weight of rotating components alone has dropped so dramatically in that time that they'd have real trouble handling the accelerations and climbs of a modern lead group. In the peloton, sure, but not riding out in the wind. The capabilities of riders is so evenly matched that a few percent lighter, even of non-rotating parts, makes a difference to the competitiveness of a rider. Otherwise, why do champion teams spend so much on hardware. Surely, it'd be a whole lot easier and cheaper to purchase a one-off custom for $5K. The same goes for stiffness under the climbers and sprinters. Put the same rider on a super stiff carbon frame and he'll deliver a better sprint than he will on a steel frame. That's why they use them.

 

As for custom fit vs. t-shirt sizing - to the best of my knowledge, teams are under no obligation to ride production models, and they already spend vast sums on bicycle development. They can have custom sizing if they want it. I have no doubt that, through testing, they concluded that they can effectively adjust sizing incrementally without modifying the frame, so they do so. As for reliability, if your argument about weight were valid, they'd simply build a carbon frame that is a pound heavier and would surely withstand any of the loads they care to throw at it. Instead, they choose to push the limitations of the material in order to get maximum benefit.

 

For the record, I've seen plenty of broken steel frames. The material behaves differently under stress and doesn't fail catastrophically the way carbon does, but it is certainly capable of failing.

[VinnyR11]

 

They also claim the frame only weighs in at 1.8 pounds. Apparently it depends which one we're talking about: according to this press release, the mountain bike frame is 2.6 pounds, and the road bike frame is a mere 1.8 pounds.

 

So that's what's been keeping me from spinning the Alps. Sadly, I'm sure once I put my 200 lb fat ass on it, the effects of the weight savings may be somewhat diminished.

[Patallaire]

 

Pat, because you raced, I'll tip my hat. But I've seen quite a few people riding $9000 Cervelos to which I could only offer a $9000 chuckle.

 

They ride them because they can, you can't tell, they might have been an ex racer, or, like buying a motorcycle, they are just flush with cash. Judgements like this are silly. I rode last night with a former national champion who is 76 years old, riding a steel frame and I was happy to just hang on at 22 mph. But I knew I was working less, it wasn't the bike, it was the man. If you have ever riden an expensive bicycle, regardless of the rolling speed, you can feel the difference, and that gives a sense of pleasure. Judge not their abilities, judge their ability to recognize quality and enjoy it.

[SeanC]

Did racing bikes not evolve into their current diamond form as materials and technology evolved, making safer bicycles possible without compromising speed?

No. The one-size-fits-all design of compact frames is not an evolution -- it's a compromise. It's more efficient for robotic mass production to only manufacture frames in a few sizes and leave all adjustments to the seatpost and handlebar stem. It's not the only way to manufacture CF frames -- many pro riders such as Allesandro Petacchi, for instance, ride CF frames with stage geometry -- it's simply the most cost-effective. Petacchi's CF Colnago had the same paint and decals as the production models, but you wouldn't find his frame at any dealers. It was simply too expensive to put into production. Fortunately for Colnago, most CF consumers and enthusiasts wouldn't know the difference anyway. As long as the color scheme, decals, model name and branding are the same.

 

Isn't that why the diamond frame was originally called a safety bike?

Sure, and we used to have another name for "compact geometry" frames with sloping top tubes too: "girls bikes."

 

How can I not compare a modern racing bicycle (or, as you would have it, a 15 year old racing bicycle) to the high performance bicycles that came before them?

Well why stop at high wheelers then? Why not compare them to wooden wheels? See, that's what I meant by lacking appreciation or perspective on the sport. Hey, if it's older than 15 years it may as well be 115 years, right?

 

My point is that it is a case of form following function, and you're arguing that we should cease the quest for improved function because it violates your sense of form.

Not quite. My point is that compact geometry frames aren't a case of form following function, but rather form following manufacturing and marketing considerations. Yes, they also violate my sense of form, but part of that is due to the fact their form is not an evolution. Composite aero wheels are an evolution. Ceramic bearings are an evolution. Index shifting was an evolution. Compact geometry frames are not evolution.

 

And I would absolutely argue that a pro cyclist would not be competitive on 20 year old technology.

 

As a really good cyclist once said, it's not about the bike. You could put that cyclist on my 18.5 lb Colnago/Campy/Mavic dinosaur, and even though it'd be 3.5 lbs heavier than his competitor's bikes, he'd still drop them all on Alpe D'Huez or Luz Ardiden, ride way off the front of the peloton and finish solo.

 

The weight of rotating components alone has dropped so dramatically in that time that they'd have real trouble handling the accelerations and climbs of a modern lead group.

That's mostly hyperbole -- the Mavic wheels I last raced on are barely different than the replacement wheels Mavic offers during ProTour events today, and my Campy cranks, BB, rings and cassette aren't dramatically heavier either -- but I would certainly opt for a current Campy gruppo if I were racing today.

 

Otherwise, why do champion teams spend so much on hardware.

You mean, why do manufacturer's spend so much money getting champion teams to ride their wares... Marketing. Over the past few years, the marketing hype surrounding CF frames has sold a lot of overpriced bikes to consumers. But steel is making a comeback -- it was supposed to be dead by now, but is far from it -- so I imagine pretty soon you'll see the CF hype wane when mfrs find a message that sticks and marry it to a new production technique that allows them to mass produce "craftsmanship" via robotic tig welders or something like that.

[SeanC]

They ride them because they can, you can't tell, they might have been an ex racer, or, like buying a motorcycle, they are just flush with cash. Judgements like this are silly.

Do not presume I do not know the difference.

 

Judge not their abilities, judge their ability to recognize quality and enjoy it.

That's a nice quote. I get what you're saying. But I reserve more respect for the ability to turn those pedals than recognize, buy and enjoy them.