New bike: SCOTT ADDICT LTD or TIME VXRS ULTEAM 06 [Archive]

SPINDAWG

11-14-2006, 02:59 PM

I have mixed feelings on the Time.I felt it lacked torsional stiffness in the head tube/frame...although the stiff fork does somewhat compensate for it.The top tube was just too thin,it flexed alot from side to side.(Boonen's had a different top tube than what is available commercially - confirmed by a friend I have over seas that picks frames up alongside the Quickstep mechanics). However...the drivetrain is incredibly rigid..with nice stiff wishbone stays. I also felt the French craftmanship was done in good taste..the bike had a nice finish.

Not too familiar with the Scott bikes...can't get past those gaudy big silver graphics they seem to love to plaster all over the frame.I have heard that they are light and corner fast. Also know they have replaceable alloy hangars that are a plus in my book.

I'd look real strong at the Colnago. A company that has put alot of bikes under alot of fast kidsbeacause they get it. They have a long successful pedigree that is the only one that I know ofthat can put out bikes with soul at production rate.Another good plus for the Italian company is that they have a wider spectrum of sizes to choose from...they come in cm. increments. Also they seem to fit the guys with long legs with shorter torsos the best but having said that...I would go one shorter than normal to allow for a longer stem...the bike is already balanced but a long stem would put alot more weight...which it likes...over the front wheel..getting nice and low.

Also, I wouldn't rule out the Pinarello camp.I've been cacooned by their Paris carbon offering and after riding this bike for a season....I can't wait to get ahold of their magnesium Dogma FPX early next year,when they are made available.Sure these frames run heavier than most but they make up for it in the ride characteristics.The paris is probably the smoothest bike I have ever been on...I think the Onda forks and stays contribute alot in the aspect. It really shines on the descents.It almost forces you to go faster and gets you to the finish line alot fresher.

Sorry for the rant...I love talking about fast bikes!

P.D.E.

11-14-2006, 03:09 PM

I'd look real strong at the Colnago. A company that has put alot of bikes under alot of fast kidsbeacause they get it. They have a long successful pedigree that is the only one that I know ofthat can put out bikes with soul at production rate.Another good plus for the Italian company is that they have a wider spectrum of sizes to choose from...they come in cm. increments. Also they seem to fit the guys with long legs with shorter torsos the best but having said that...I would go one shorter than normal to allow for a longer stem...

SPINDAWG: not to change the thread topic, but what other bike makers are you aware of that are good for long legs/short torso? (I heard Specialized)

divve

11-14-2006, 04:24 PM

The Scott Addict with integrated post won't be available for quite some time due to production problems with the clamp.

rocco

11-14-2006, 04:33 PM

deleted

rocco

11-14-2006, 04:36 PM

I love my VXRS but with that being said, the Look 595 Ultra and the Pina Paris carbon are on my radar for my next frame.

Maverick

11-14-2006, 05:06 PM

between 595 and ULTEAM, i would prefer the ULTEAM.

TIME frameset seems a more superior frame although the 595 Origina/ULTRA uses the latest in carbon (nanotechnology apparently)

Pina paris is another good bet.

as for the SCOTT, i do agree with the overly large DECALs.

for 2007, it seems to that TIME has not improve the ULTEAM by large.

SPINDAWG

11-14-2006, 05:48 PM

SPINDAWG: not to change the thread topic, but what other bike makers are you aware of that are good for long legs/short torso? (I heard Specialized)

Unfortunately,there are very few frames with short top tubes. Some that come to mind are some Look models but only the few that have the traditional 72.5 STA like the 481 and 386...Colnago and you might check the Gios line.Some Merckx frames have slack STA such as the stock team sc.

Contrary to what most folks believe,frames with more relaxed STAs actually have a shorter reach for an given saddle position,relative to the bb.The exact difference in horizontal reach is the c-c frame size times(cosA-cosB) where A and B are the two STAs.To compare two frames with different STAs,the (positive) value can either be added to the TT length of the frame with the steeper STA or subtracted from the TT length of the frame with a more relaxed STA to figure the true difference in reach.For an average 55cm frame,the value is 9mm per dgree.The comparison even holds for frames of slightly different sizes,assuming the same handlebar height is used.

P.D.E.

11-14-2006, 07:19 PM

Thanks SPINDAWG, that was very helpful, and it makes perfect sense now that I think about it as you describe. I wish the LBS guy who sold me my last bike (when I was pretty much a road newbie at the time) was that knowlegeable as he basically got it the wrong way around when we were discussing different bikes and their relative cockpit lengths!

Maverick

11-16-2006, 12:15 AM

:) If you can, i would go for the colnago extreme power

I've never ridden a Colnago until today..

have ridden Merckx, Trek, and now Time.

as far as i'm concern, Colnago has not impress me on their tubing technology unlike TIME or SCOTT.
not much development has taken place over the yrs on Colnago's CF tubing. It claims to be manufactured by similar CF manufacturer that does FERRARIs and that's about it.:aureola:

jsmst32

11-16-2006, 06:32 AM

I have the Ulteam and I love it. It is extremely stiff. Don't believe those who say differently. I don't know if Boonen has a different frame then what I have, but I do know that there are only a few number of people that can generate the power and torque that Boonen produces. That being said...you, me and everyone else isn't going to flex this bike. Also, only time and the higher end Colnagoes recieve carbon sheets and then shape their carbon by hand in house. This allows the bike makers to fabricate the frame to their desired specifications. My bike built up with Campy euros, Campy Carbon Record weighs in at 15.9lbs, which I think is pretty light. Add into that the stiffness and I think you can't find a lighter and better bike.

As for the Scott, I too looked at this bike because of the claimed stiffness to weight ratio. I had a Pinarello Alum and was told that I would hate the highest end Scott even compared to my midrange Pinarello because of the flex. They wouldn't even let me try it. Take what you want out of that. (PS it wasn't a scam to get me buy a more expensive bike bc I basically got the bike at cost)

I also looked at the Colnago Extreme-C, but chose the Time bc it was lighter, seemed stiffer, cost less, and seemed to have more "thought" put into the design. Good luck with your decision.

rocco

11-16-2006, 07:39 AM

When I firmly grasp the saddle and stem on my VXRS and push one and tug the other with some effort I can make the frame flex laterally but whether it's enough to make much of difference in how the bike performs in it's intended use for me or anyone else seems dubious.
If anything bad ever happened to me while riding this bike I doubt it had anything to do with the frames front end lateral rigity. ...bad drivers, perhaps ...bad roads, perhaps ...flat tire, yes ...rear derailleur that needed adjustment, yep ...my fitness, sure ...the frame, no, never.

Spear Legweak

11-16-2006, 09:08 AM

:) hi guys..

appreciate any feedback from anyone.

i will be selling off my current bike (TIME VXR-great bike!) selling due to wrong size:mad2: , and planning to purchase a new frame/bike soon.

at the moment, i'm down with a couple of choices.
1. SCOTT ADDICT LTD (with intergrated post)
2. TIME VXRS ULTEAM

may consider the COLNAGA EXTREME POWER as well.

can anyone provide me with the pros/cons of the above frameset(s)?

anyway, FYI, i weigh 130lbs, am 5ft 4in tall.

cheers

If ya don't mind, what kind of riding are you doin and what are you looking for in a frame (looks,weight,material,and so on)? From what I've read, the Colnago Extreme Power is a sprinters bike with larger diameter tubes and internal reinforcements for when guys with a name like "THOR" throw down the hammer (not that he rides one). At your weight and height and if your thinking Colnago, why not a C50 or Extreme-C to think about? Without knowing more about your type of riding and what your looking for, it's hard to recomend. But from the other 2 you mentioned, I know a lot of racers that use a Scott CR1 and are happy. I think the Addict is still fairly new (and costly) that you won't get much feed back on it. It's supposed to be a good upgrade from the CR1. If it fits ya ok, then give it a shot:thumbsup:

rollinrob

11-16-2006, 10:21 AM

I would check out the offerings from Look. Great Frames and great customer service. I had a small paint crack in my headtube of my Look 555. They sent me a Look 565 to replace it within 1 week of me posting a pic of the cracked headtube on the Look forums on this board.. Customer service goes a long way to me!

toronto-rider

11-16-2006, 02:28 PM

I have a Look 585

http://weightweenies.starbike.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=23362

Nothing more sexy than that (bikes that is)

Maverick

11-16-2006, 04:25 PM

:) i'm actually on the look-out for a frame which climbs (and fits) well.

i've tried the CR1 LTD once, and it's a totally different animal if compare with my 06 VXR.
Seems much smoother and stiffer.

i guess a lot of it has got to do with the larger diamter and thin walled CF tubing :confused:

nevertheless, both a great frames..

never ridden a Colnago, so i can't tell the difference between TIME and Colnago

LiteSpeeder

11-17-2006, 07:49 AM

As someone mentioned earlier, Colnago sizes are spaced out at 1cm increments. So, you should have a much easier time of selecting the right frame size. You already made the mistake of choosing the incorrect size with you existing Time. The large number of Colnago sizes is really a plus when compared to the relatively low number of sizes offered by Time or Look.

If the Time Ulteam fits then it's the best choice in terms of ride quality, build quality and performance. But, it has to fit! If you have not already done so, get measured by a serotta qualified fitter and use the measurements to make you choice. Don't compromise on fit by choosing an in-between size. Otherwise, you will be in the same position as you are now with your Time.

One thing that I do not like about these choices is their decals. I really like the Colnago colors, headbadge and decals. But, Time and Look decals are just not appealing to me.

atpjunkie

11-17-2006, 02:00 PM

I'd take the Time over the Scott
I thought the Look 595 integrated seatpost was the best of the bunch
if ya want a stiff sprinters bike, the Ridley Noah is beefed like no other in the BB and in Green
if money isn't an object Merckx AXM
the Nag extreme power was nice too! but it was down on my list.
lots of Italian rides are short TT with Long ST
Boonen is just the opposite, a 57 ST with a 59 or 60 TT (another reason he needs stiffened TTs)
but his build is just like De Vlaemnics and eddy thinks that long torso short stocky legs makes a lower center of gravity superior for the pave

Maverick

11-18-2006, 04:44 AM

my previous ride before my current VXR was the Eddy Merckx GX2, and the TEAM SC. both are great bikes nonetheless.

the reason i choose TIME over EDDY MERCKX AXM was the tubing technology TIME put in.
there`s no denying both TIME and EDDY are great bikes, but as we all know,　CF frames has evolved by leap and bounds over the years (there`s so many CF framesets out there nowadays as compared to, say 2 yrs ago?)
TIME attracted me with how they manipulated the carbon tubes into different types of shapes sizes, etc. and I believe TIME were among the pioneers with INTEGRATED SEAT POST frame design?:thumbsup:

it goes to show the research TIME puts in is none other than marvelous, manufacturers are currently following suit the ISP design. it works, i guess:idea:

with EDDY, we can`t go wrong. AXM is indeeed a great frame. among the stiffest frame out there (as according to Bicycling Mag)

but TIME has the technology.

cheers.

uzziefly

11-18-2006, 04:55 AM

AlexCad5

11-18-2006, 05:19 AM

Do you know what your perfect TT and HT would be with the according STA? Do you have a preferred HTA? If you do, it narrows down your search pretty dramatically. Then, given the bikes that fit you, you can ask, which do you like the best.

That 595 on the weight weenies site was really beautiful. Man, that was a ton of $$$ to build up.

acid_rider

11-18-2006, 04:34 PM

I like Tom Boonen's bike... The white world championship bike.. SWEEEET... is the frame available?

Look 595, white just does it....

Hmm to the OP, is tere anything about your Time bike you don't like or do you just wanna try something different from time?

FYI: Boonen will be riding Specialized Roubaix from 2007 for 3 years. I wonder if they will need to beef it up in BB area like they had to do on his Time.

1centaur

11-18-2006, 05:13 PM

Contrary to what most folks believe,frames with more relaxed STAs actually have a shorter reach for an given saddle position,relative to the bb.

While spindawg is correct, the casual reader should make sure to focus on the qualifier - an identical saddle position vs. the bottom bracket. If instead the rider maintains the same saddle position on the clamp, the saddle moves back and the reach lengthens. Why would a rider do that? Because few riders have absolutely locked in the one and only one saddle position vs. the BB that they must have. The Arione is popular in part because riders can move forward and back on it, which changes reach and position vs. BB. I like my slacker ST angled bikes for days when I feel like pushing up hills in the saddle, using my quads a bit more, etc. Simply put, I like variety and I'm not a slave to saddle vs. BB position in millimeters. Slacker seat tubes change the bike weight balance a bit regardless of saddle position vs. BB, but more so if saddle-in-clamp position stays the same.

So, when you think of what STA does to reach, remember that the answer has to do with what happens to your saddle position.

rocco

11-19-2006, 07:46 PM

FYI: Boonen will be riding Specialized Roubaix from 2007 for 3 years. I wonder if they will need to beef it up in BB area like they had to do on his Time.

You got the first half of the story correct and the second half incorrect.

rocco

11-19-2006, 07:56 PM

Boonen is just the opposite, a 57 ST with a 59 or 60 TT (another reason he needs stiffened TTs) but his build is just like De Vlaemnics and eddy thinks that long torso short stocky legs makes a lower center of gravity superior for the pave

Hmmmm.... I should try riding the pave some day. A custom Time with a 52 ST and a 55 or 56 TT would be perfect for me but I'm just a mortal so I settle for a standard 53 cm with a 54 TT and 140mm stem. Can't get enough setback with the standard 51cm frame.

OnTheRivet

11-20-2006, 03:20 PM

You got the first half of the story correct and the second half incorrect.

Yep, I think he's right.

From Cyclingnews;

Stronger bike for Boonen

Tom Boonen is to ride the E3 Prijs with a sturdier frame, reports Sportwereld.be. The brute strength of the Quick.Step rider in the sprints has seen him have several mishaps with his gearing. Thus, Quick.Step's frame supplier Time is beefing things up for Tornado Tom, just in case.

rocco

11-20-2006, 03:58 PM

Maverick

11-22-2006, 02:36 AM

thanks for all the feedback and replies to everyone..

was informed that my ULTEAM will be arriving tomorrow:p

will be getting the XXS size and a 90mm stem, hopefully the bike wont look overly dorky:D
definitely getting the smallest possible size as i had to sacrifice my 7months old VXR due to sizing concerns
(FYI, previous VXR frameset was a XS, with 100mm stem)

cheers

HBPUNK

11-23-2006, 08:50 PM

That Time is the elite frame, none better

SPINDAWG

11-24-2006, 03:29 PM

Yep, I think he's right.

From Cyclingnews;

Stronger bike for Boonen

Tom Boonen is to ride the E3 Prijs with a sturdier frame, reports Sportwereld.be. The brute strength of the Quick.Step rider in the sprints has seen him have several mishaps with his gearing. Thus, Quick.Step's frame supplier Time is beefing things up for Tornado Tom, just in case.

There is no issue at all with the drivetrain rigidity of the time.There is an issue of Boonen frucking with his barrell adjusters during the races.The time has a soft frontend...which isn't a bad thing but has nothing to do with Boonen's chain skipping on the 11th tooth.

OnTheRivet

11-24-2006, 05:41 PM

There is no issue at all with the drivetrain rigidity of the time.There is an issue of Boonen frucking with his barrell adjusters during the races.The time has a soft frontend...which isn't a bad thing but has nothing to do with Boonen's chain skipping on the 11th tooth.

It happened three times in a row at the 2005 TDF, What's he ADD and constantly messing with them? From the looks of your $30,000 poseur stable you obviously know more about bike racing than Tom, maybe you can call him and give him some pointers. :rolleyes:

rocco

11-24-2006, 06:36 PM

SPINDAWG

11-24-2006, 06:38 PM

It happened three times in a row at the 2005 TDF, What's he ADD and constantly messing with them? From the looks of your $30,000 poseur stable you obviously know more about bike racing than Tom, maybe you can call him and give him some pointers. :rolleyes:

That's real nice man...sort of like your POS bike you have posted in the gallery.I contacted Mike Perry of Maestros in the UK about these mishaps with boonen's bike.... who by the way is a respectable Time and colnago dealer .....who just happens to collect his frames alongside Danny de Bie and the head mechanic Freddy Heydens of Quick Step at the factory and confirmed these findings.They never messed with bb as the Time's drivetrain is already more than rigid enough...only the toptube was beefed up and by the way.....I've got your poseur.

OnTheRivet

11-24-2006, 07:46 PM

sort of like your POS bike you have posted in the gallery.

Hehehehehe, If I was defined by my possessions (bicycles) like some people that crack about my bike might bother me, however I'm not so I don't feel the need to defend a particular brand or model of bike just to keep from having buyers remorse.........when are you getting the Time bike buy the way?

rocco

11-24-2006, 10:14 PM

Hehehehehe, If I was defined by my possessions (bicycles) like some people that crack about my bike might bother me, however I'm not so I don't feel the need to defend a particular brand or model of bike just to keep from having buyers remorse.........when are you getting the Time bike buy the way?

Oh man... You're so high right now, you have no idea what's going on.

-- You really set yourself up there with all of that projecting and BS about what defines you but I chose to be nice about it.

OnTheRivet

11-25-2006, 12:56 AM

Oh man... You're so high right now, you have no idea what's going on.

-- You really set yourself up there with all of that projecting and BS about what defines you but I chose to be nice about it.

Have at it....please, I'm bored and could use the entertainment. :thumbsup:

rocco

11-25-2006, 10:14 AM

Have at it....please, I'm bored and could use the entertainment. :thumbsup:

We have better things to do with our time/lives. :idea:

uzziefly

11-25-2006, 10:24 AM

Err after all the swipes for God know what reason, where are the pictures Maverick??!!!!!!! We want pictures!!! Heck, I want pictures man! Congrats on the new purchase...

I'm still wonering why rivet took a swipe at rocco.. :idea:

Anyway, so, Tom is riding Specialized next yr? ??? Err, either Quick Step is being sponsored by Specialized or Tom's moving to Gerolsteiner.. Both of which I doubt.. So, what's he riding again??

He's so powerful that the bike actually ain't stiff enough for him.. WOW... I mean, really, WOW..

By the way, anyone knows if his white World Champ frame is available and how much it costs? Thanks.

Lets all make peace now shall we? :)

rocco

11-25-2006, 11:51 AM

MaestroXC

11-25-2006, 12:00 PM

redundant post.

uzziefly

11-25-2006, 11:51 PM

QS is definitely using Specialized frames next year.

I just saw a white WC VXRS Ulteam for sale at a LBS this week but I didn't inquire about the price because that LBS is on the extra pricey side.

Oh they are?? So it's Gerolsteiner and QS? Interesting if that's the case...

So who's using Time now, dou you know?

Well how much is the non WC frame anyway? I was THINKING of a new frame.. But I'll see how it goes..

rocco

11-26-2006, 07:52 AM

Oh they are?? So it's Gerolsteiner and QS? Interesting if that's the case...

So who's using Time now, dou you know?

Well how much is the non WC frame anyway? I was THINKING of a new frame.. But I'll see how it goes..

That's correct, Gerolsteiner and QS using Specialized. I'm not sure which team or teams will be using Time frames in 2007 but I'd bet it or they are French. We'll see in the spring.

A standard VXRS Ulteam module is about $4500 while a WC version is $5,700 or not worth the extra $$$$ much less $ IMO.

http://www.wrenchscience.com/Time/Road_Bikes/Frames.html

http://www.maestro-uk.com/

http://www.totalcycling.com/index.php/product/parts_accessories/frames_time/index.html?action=currency&id=USD

uzziefly

11-26-2006, 09:01 AM

That's correct, Gerolsteiner and QS using Specialized. I'm not sure which team or teams will be using Time frames in 2007 but I'd bet it or they are French. We'll see in the spring.

A standard VXRS Ulteam module is about $4500 while a WC version is $5,700 or not worth the extra $$$$ much less $ IMO.

http://www.wrenchscience.com/Time/Road_Bikes/Frames.html

http://www.maestro-uk.com/

http://www.totalcycling.com/index.php/product/parts_accessories/frames_time/index.html?action=currency&id=USD

Aieee yaiii yaiii... That's quite expensive.... Hmm I guess I'll pass on it then.. Darn.. I like the frame though..Oh well.

crashjames

11-26-2006, 04:18 PM

FWIW, I have neither the Scott nor the Time. I have a Colnago C40 (B-Stay version) that I really dig.

Is it the lightest thing out there? Nope.
Latest Nano Carbon technology? Nope.

I can tell you that it's the best bike I've ever owned. Very comfy, and beautiful to look at. Plus, it is only the winningest bike brand in modern cycling.

Maverick

11-26-2006, 06:14 PM

ah..
finally..a bike that fits (close to perfect that is):p

still dialing in to get the optimum fit.

ps: sorry for the D/Ace components, and not a Record.:aureola:

cheers to everyone..and peace too!:thumbsup:

uzziefly

11-26-2006, 06:47 PM

Is it just me Maverick or is the picture quality some what, well, un-quality? :D

stevesbike

11-27-2006, 06:12 AM

uzziefly

11-27-2006, 06:33 AM

SuperSlow

11-27-2006, 07:29 AM

that is a gorgous bike!

rocco

11-27-2006, 07:35 AM

Personally, I'd be suspicious of a frame manufacturer that can't make a carbon frame that can hold up in a sprint--Boonen's early season mishaps in sprints were caused by a noodle of a Time frame, requiring them to customize a bike for him. It is not hard to design a carbon frame that is both light and stiff-the Cervelo R3 is both the lightest and stiffest frame around (velonews test). Not that an average rider is going to cause chain skip with their jump, but I'd be worried that it is a sign of poor design.

Dear Mr Boonen,

We know you are super powerfull sprinter and require the stiffest frame that can be made so perhaps the R3 is the frame for you. However, keep in mind that Cervelo is notorious for their poorly finished carbon frames and they won't be able to make you those frames with an extra long/custom top tube that Time has been able to provide you with. We all regret that early versions of your custom sized frame didn't have enough layers of carbon in the top tube to provide you with sufficient lateral stiffness in the front end of you bike for your super powerful physique. We all know you're not much of climber and you'll generally drop out of the Tour before the Alps so the twitchy handling of the R3 due to the short wheel base and trail won't be an issue for you. Oh... and you're a pro so no worries about Cervelo's massive recall on their carbon frames that break apart.

Best regards,

P.S. Did you ever notice that Bettini or any other rider on QS never had any issue with "a noodle of a Time frame"? Did you know that Colnago made cutom/beefed up the C-50s for Zabel and Petacchi and now they offer a new frame called the C-50 Extreme Power for the general public and super sized and super powerful sprinters like you? :thumbsup:

Oh... and since "it is not hard to design a carbon frame that is both light and stiff" maybe you should start making your own line of lightest and stiffest carbon frames. You've got the big name to slap on the down tubes and before we know it you'll own the high end carbon racing market.

I can see it now, Boonen frames everywhere and the R3 will be relegated to the heap of other frames that are considered to be heavy noodles. :idea:

stevesbike

11-27-2006, 07:38 AM

sorry, was comparing the R3 to the older Scott frame (both tested in the Veolonews test). I'd be a lot more concerned about stiffness than a few grams at this point in these frames...re newer models, I'd guess the new Cervelo soloist SL would likely be the new stiffest of the superlight frames around (and maybe the stiffest period given the R3 specs)...

52-16SS

11-27-2006, 07:50 AM

I sincerely believe that modern, high end, frames have adequate stiffness for all but a few individuals. Adequate stiffness being sufficiently stiff but not too stiff, I have yet too see any information on stiffness vs. performance, there are so many variables beyond frame stiffness that would be easier to improve for increased performance. Stiffness has become nothing more than a selling point.

uzziefly

11-27-2006, 07:57 AM

Dear Mr Boonen,

We know you are super powerfull sprinter and require the stiffest frame that can be made so perhaps the R3 is the frame for you. However, keep in mind that Cervelo is notorious for their poorly finished carbon frames and they won't be able to make you those frames with an extra long/custom top tube that Time has been able to provide you with. We all regret that early versions of your custom sized frame didn't have enough layers of carbon in the top tube to provide you with sufficient lateral stiffness in the front end of you bike for your super powerful physique. We all know you're not much of climber and you'll generally drop out of the Tour before the Alps so the twitchy handling of the R3 due to the short wheel base and trail won't be an issue for you. Oh... and you're a pro so no worries about Cervelo's massive recall on their carbon frames that break apart.

Best regards,

P.S. Did you ever notice that Bettini or any other rider on QS never had any issue with "a noodle of a Time frame"? Did you know that Colnago made cutom/beefed up the C-50s for Zabel and Petacchi and now they offer a new frame called the C-50 Extreme Power for the general public and super sized and super powerful sprinters like you? :thumbsup:

Oh... and since "it is not hard to design a carbon frame that is both light and stiff" maybe you should start making your own line of lightest and stiffest carbon frames. You've got the big name to slap on the down tubes and before we know it you'll own the high end carbon racing market.

I can see it now, Boonen frames everywhere and the R3 will be relegated to the heap of other frames that are considered to be heavy noodles. :idea:

Now who wrote that letter??!!!! :D :D

Did Boonen respond to it? :D

stevesbike

11-27-2006, 10:29 AM

uzziefly

11-27-2006, 11:17 AM

Here's Boonen's reply:

Dear Time Technical Development Staff:

no worries about the lack of lateral stiffness in the frame. When my chain unexpectedly downshifted during my jump after spending 6 hours in a grueling spring classic, I actually welcomed the chance to sit down for a moment. It was kind of nice to relax a bit after such a long ride, and it gave me a chance to see a sprint from the back so I can use it as a learning opportunity for future sprints. Since you are selling the bare frame for over $4,000 I would suggest you market this as an "auto-shift" feature of the frame-I'm sure riders can get used to the chain skipping over the cogs during their jumps, and since you're selling basically last-generation lugged carbon frames for so much, it will help justify the huge pricetag. Don't worry that lightness comes from flimsy tubing. Most people buying the bike will do so as a vanity frame anway and will never race it...

By the way, I'm sure glad my team didn't do with Cervelo. Those bikes sure are a liability for CSC. Who would want the lightest, stiffest, and most aerodynamics framesets anyway

:D:D

err, won't ANYbody want those frames instead if they are the lightest,stiffest, most aero....

:idea:

acid_rider

11-27-2006, 08:40 PM

Here's Boonen's reply:

Dear Time Technical Development Staff:

no worries about the lack of lateral stiffness in the frame. When my chain unexpectedly downshifted during my jump after spending 6 hours in a grueling spring classic, I actually welcomed the chance to sit down for a moment. It was kind of nice to relax a bit after such a long ride, and it gave me a chance to see a sprint from the back so I can use it as a learning opportunity for future sprints. Since you are selling the bare frame for over $4,000 I would suggest you market this as an "auto-shift" feature of the frame-I'm sure riders can get used to the chain skipping over the cogs during their jumps, and since you're selling basically last-generation lugged carbon frames for so much, it will help justify the huge pricetag. Don't worry that lightness comes from flimsy tubing. Most people buying the bike will do so as a vanity frame anway and will never race it...

By the way, I'm sure glad my team didn't do with Cervelo. Those bikes sure are a liability for CSC. Who would want the lightest, stiffest, and most aerodynamics framesets anyway

since I am possibly shopping for TIME Edge First i.e. I like the brand, I will tell you what my local TIME distributor just told me today: there is 86kg rider weight limit on Time Translink frames. Not sure what the rider limit is on a seat-posted Time frames but this all made me think hard now. I am only 73kg (ready to ride) but I know Specialized Roubaix (for example) has no such limit and I know fat/obese dudes who are ~110-120kg and been riding Roubaix carbon for 2 years now. No problems. And Boonen will be too in 2007.

52-16SS

11-28-2006, 05:23 AM

since I am possibly shopping for TIME Edge First i.e. I like the brand, I will tell you what my local TIME distributor just told me today: there is 86kg rider weight limit on Time Translink frames. Not sure what the rider limit is on a seat-posted Time frames but this all made me think hard now. I am only 73kg (ready to ride) but I know Specialized Roubaix (for example) has no such limit and I know fat/obese dudes who are ~110-120kg and been riding Roubaix carbon for 2 years now. No problems. And Boonen will be too in 2007.

From the VXRS manual:
"The TIME Translink Modules are the result of optimising all associated components in order to give the greatest weight reduction. These Modules are just as suitable for powerful riders on the flat as for light climbers.Module sizes XXS, XS, S, M and L are supplied with a short seat post (part no. 07105003). For module sizes XL and XXL, a long seat post (part no. 07105003/GT) is automatically supplied with the Module. For riders over 85Kg on sizes XXS, XS, S, M and L, it is imperative that a long seat post be used (part no. 07105003/GT). This seat post will be supplied on request in exchange for the post originally supplied with the module."

I guess it makes sense not to allow hearsay in court as it tends to be BS.

stevesbike

11-28-2006, 06:02 AM

rocco

11-28-2006, 08:56 AM

what the distributor said was consistent with a weight limit on an originally spec'd frame, requiring a swapped out part for a heavier rider. Personally, I would be weary of any frame that requires special equipment if you're over 185. The magic number of 185 is a give away for frames/components that are giving up strength for light weight, and would be items I'd worry about failing under normal fatique. The first rule of industrial design is good design is overdesign. Underdesigned parts may be OK for special usage (like a TT or special climbing bike that is only getting limited use, but for general usage is a red flag).

As an industrial designer I'm here to tell you that "overdesign" or over-engineering does not by definition equal good design. The first rule of industrial design is not "good design is overdesign". The functional aspect of good design is about designing and engineering the product for optimal functionality in respect to the user or users and the task/functional purpose of the product. These frames are designed and engineered first and foremost to be used by elite professional road cyclists on world class parcours. There aren't many (though there are a few, ex. Magnus Backstedt) elite professional road cyclists that weigh more than 85Kg. Why would forcing a 60Kg racer like Paolo Bettini to use a heavier component that is only necessary for 85Kg + rider (or general rider such as yourself) equal good design? It doesn't. The frame/module is secondarily programed to use a part that is properly engineered to allow heavier riders to use the frame/module safely and effectively. Design challenges solved.

There are too many examples of high performance frames and components that have a weight limit to even list here (though the Campagnolo Bora wheel and Speedplay zero titanium pedals are two) and notion that such limits automatically raise a red flag is obsurd. ...unless your too heavy. What equipment you personally choose to use based on your particular beliefs and your personal situation is your prerogative but the fact that you're weary does not mean the product is poorly designed and engineered.

stevesbike

11-28-2006, 01:06 PM

52-16SS

11-28-2006, 01:48 PM

so I did something improbable when I cracked a Thomson stem? Should handlebars be made so they can survive crashes, it's a probable load case isn't it? You can't design for everything!

Apparently Time considered the load case of a chubby fella on a light weight racing bike and came to the conclusion that he should use a different seatpost, to me that appears to be a much better option than to tell chubs not to ride it.

rocco

11-28-2006, 02:27 PM

Sorry, but that is simply not true. Good design, or engineering, follows the principle that a component that is exposed to load, fatigue, etc. be capable of exceeding the loads it would experience in real-world applications. For example, Boeing designs their wings to withstand a 150% load greater than its design load of 4g's (the maximum it would ever encounter). I referred to this informally as overdesign, since it wasn't intended as an industrial design post. Call it optimized design if you want, but the principle remains the same.

It is fine if a bike company wants to make components that operate within very narrow ranges. But consumers should be aware that a bike component that carries a maximum rider weight limit is also one that represents a major trade-off, and is more likely to fail under normal load. I personally dont think that trade-off is worth it in a frame, especially if it is going to be in everyday use, and I doubt many such frames have been extensively studied in terms of their fatigue/failure modes. Unlike a pro racer, the average consumer doesn't have the luxury of swapping frames & components multiple times in a year, so exposes them to abnormal life cycles. As Thomson's website points out (http://www.lhthomson.com/carbon_seatpost.htm), these considerations should be especially true for carbon fiber, as its failure mode is catastrophic (as per the Airbus that crashed in NYC in 2001).

Yes good design, or engineering, follows the principle that a component that is exposed to load, fatigue, etc. be capable of exceeding the loads it would experience in real-world applications for which it is intended. The 747 wing example is really an apples to oranges comparison however Boeing doesn't spec the same wing for the 747-400 as they do for 747-100 nor vice versa. Time makes a seatpost that is engineered to withstand the load of a rider that weighs less than 85Kg and another for riders who weigh more. I have no doubt that the seatpost for the sub 85Kg rider, the Campy Bora wheel and Speedplay zero titanium pedal are in fact engineered to handle loads significantly higher than what the manuals indicate. What you fail to factor into this is the issues of legal liability and the fact that companies often understate the capabilites of their products so as to create such a large margin that they're their potential exposure is minimized.

Every component and frame made has some max weight limit. Consumers should be aware that a bike component that carries a maximum rider weight limit and every bike frame or component manufacturer provides that information in the manuals for these products. For a company not to do that would be potential legal suicide.

Time in fact makes two different posts to accomodate different catagories of riders so there is no trade-off. I wouldn't buy a frame or component that has an abnormally short life cycle either and there's no evidence that Times frames do have an abnormally short life cycle. In fact they come with a life-time guarantee.

Anyway, I don't have anymore time for this right now because I've got to go give my Time VXRS and Bora wheels their daily does of use... :)

P.S. The frame is almost three years old and shows zero evidence of an imminent need of replacment multiple times in a year. :wink:

stevesbike

11-28-2006, 02:42 PM

Yes, in fact, you did do something improbable when you cracked a Thomson stem. Were it not extremely improbable (on the order of 1 in thousands), there would be a recall. And, no, crashing is not a probable load, since crashes are statistically rare events. There is no intrinsic reason why a component should be designed to survive a statistically rare event, though it is important that it not contribute to the likelihood of injury in the event of a crash, a conditional probability. That's the reason for handlebar plugs and why they are part of pre-race inspections.

I agree that stiffness in frames has become a maketing ploy, but then so has weight even more, and the quest for light weight has resulted in questionable design decisions that often result in products that are more likely to fail under normal loads. My original point was just that carbon fiber can be used to make frames that are both exceptionally light and strong. Cervelo applies finite element analysis simulations in their design cycle to do so, resulting in a frame, the R3, that was until recently both the lightest and stiffest frame in production. Simply using less material, like some companies do, to make lighter frames is not good design, and putting weight limits on those frames is further evidence that their designs are suspect. You can make an aircraft more fuel efficient by making lighter wings that have lower load capacity-would you want to fly around in one made like that? Descending at 50+ miles an hour on a 2lb frame, the last thing I want to worry about is its structural integrity...

rocco

11-28-2006, 04:29 PM

Simply using less material, like some companies do, to make lighter frames is not good design, and putting weight limits on those frames is further evidence that their designs are suspect.

It's that simple and you have some brand names and proof to go along with your claims?

Maverick

11-29-2006, 06:14 AM

Is it just me Maverick or is the picture quality some what, well, un-quality? :D

initial pic was above 800kb, so gotta resize it to less than 400kb. in the course of using the default m/s pic editor s/ware, the pic got somewhat hazy and 'un-quality' as what was mentioned by u..:p
i will resend a better pic again.:D

cheers to all.

thanks

terzo rene

11-29-2006, 07:16 AM

It is actually pretty easy to design and build a carbon frame that is very light and very stiff AND brittle and harsh riding. The hard part is getting light, stiff, durable and comfortable and I'm not sure anyone has quite done that yet.

If you are going to blow that amount of money on a frame get a custom Crumpton, Parlee, Spin, etc. and get something to suit your needs rather than someone else's.

stevesbike

11-29-2006, 08:25 AM

rocco

11-29-2006, 01:46 PM

sorry but at a fundamental level the statement I made is not an oversimplification. There are only two ways to alter frame weight: altering the density, or specific gravity, of the material used, (say measured in terms of grams per cc) or alter the total amount of material used. Let me know if you have any alternatives, other than weighing the frame on a less massive object, like the moon...

Nice tacking maneuver there... That's not what you said nor what you were infering in the post to which I replied. You're twisting your argument around and around like pretzel and it's getting to be quite dull. You said, "simply using less material, like some companies do, to make lighter frames is not good design, and putting weight limits on those frames is further evidence that their designs are suspect." You disparagingly infered that "some companies" are cutting corners on quality by simply using less material without any consideration for relevant contextual issues nor back it up any credible sources. Your statements are often overly simplistic and if you can't back your accusations then they're worthless. Furthermore, using less material in a design that is intended for specific weight limit does not automatically equal evidence of a suspect or bad design. The logic on which you base such a conclusion is fundamentally flawed. According to your argument a frame, wheel or component design is suspect unless it can bear an infinite amount of weight.

Holding constant the density of the material used, differences in frame weight are due the total amount of material used. Again, if this is an oversimplification let me know the alternative. The strength and ride characteristics of a frame will thus be determined by the distribution of the material used, determining its specific strength at critical locations (measures as newton metres/kg). I would argue that traditional external lugs limit the design possibilities of carbon (also requiring carbon fibers to be cut and not crossing a joint introduces specific failure points; traditonal chainstay/BB joints are a case in point). In terms of specific brands, all I know is that many companies do not release information regarding the testing of their frames, what fatigue tests they use, whether they use destructive testing, etc. I do know that many frame makers push these limits: Bianchi did it with their extremely thinwalled alu frames some years ago. In the absence of established standards for frames, as the quest for lighther and lighter frames continues, in the absence of new materials, this will have to come about via tweaking the total amount of material used and optimizing its distribution.

Another oversimplification because in the real world density of the various materials used in all frames is not constant. The strength and ride characteristics of a frame are not only determined by the distribution of the material used but also is determined by the strength properties to weight ratios of the materials that are used (the specific alloy or grade of carbon) and the forms into which those materiala are fabricated. The way materials are shaped/formed can do quite a bit to optimize rigidity if done so in manner that is appropriate for the material being used. For example a piece of sheet metal is stronger and more rigid if it's shaped into a dome than a piece of the same type of material is when it's flat. The distribution of the material used throughout such a part remains equal though the piece is more rigid.

You would argue that traditional external lugs limit the design possibilities of carbon but you don't back it up with any credible data or sources that back up your argument. Your statement that many companies do not release information regarding the testing of their frames seems to be an excuse for that fact but it dosen't buy you a pass. Cervelo releases information regarding the testing of their frames and have used that fact in information as a powerful marketing tool yet they've had to recall 2005 R2.5 frames with serial numbers greater than R251700. http://www.cervelo.com/r25recall/default.aspx It goes to show that such testing and the results those tests yield go out the window when they don't a have sufficient practices and quality control in the production process. When they don't a have sufficient practices and quality control in the production process the use of a lugged design will limit the performance of a frame regardless of the materials used. That's also true if the frame is monocoque or if the joints are wrapped.

You've stated that you know that many frame makers push these limits but you've only sighted one example. You've offered next to nothing in terms of specific information or real substantive proof regarding which ones do and to what degree. However, I think it's safe to say that some frame makers do push the limits because that's what often goes with the territory of of high performance equipment. I you prefer to play it extra safe then don't drive an Enzo; drive a Volvo.

stevesbike

11-29-2006, 05:56 PM

rocco

11-29-2006, 08:12 PM

I don't know where you got the impression I was a casaul rider advocating non-performance frames. I've raced since the 1980s in the US, Canada, and Europe against fields containing both national teams and pro riders, was on a team sponsored by Look when they were first producing their carbon frames like the KG96, and in 1985 raced for a team in Canada on Vitus 979s, all first-generation alternative material frames.

Gee should should we whip our dorks out and compare sizes now? Where did I ever say that you are a casual rider? Is being a casual ridea bad thing? Seeing as you've done so much it sure seems strange that you've still got something to prove. Seeing as anyone can claim anything here because there's not much chance it can proven true or false makes it a rather strange place to do so.

Anyway, it sounds like you've had a life full of great cycling experiences and it seems like we actually have a lot in common in this regard. On other hand is any of this supposed to give your arguments any more weight? Perhaps I'm a touch jaded but IMHO it dosen't.

...though you did ride a Vitus 979 so you do know what a noodle frame is really like. Poor Sean Kelly, how did ever manage to win a race on one of those?

You also seem to be missing my basic point that there doesn't need to be any tradeoff between high-performance and safety.

True, there dosen't necessarily need to be a tradeoff between high-performance and safety. Actually it is you who is missing the point. You have repeatedly tried to make the case that Time VXRS frames trade off high-performance for safety with absolutely nothing of merit to support your claim.

Your analogy with an Enzo and a Volvo is a bad one: the Enzo is clearly safer as the guy who t-boned an Enzo into a power pole on PCH doing 160 found out when he walked away (and knocked out my power for 3 hours). That's good design.

I'm well aware of that story as I live in the area as well. Though I think that bonehead didn't get killed mostly due to luck perhaps the Enzo isn't the best example. ...let's just leave it at perhaps top fueled dragsters and drag racing aren't for you.

The point is, for most bike manufacterers consumers simply don't know what tests their frames have been subject to. EFBe is the only company I am aware of that does independent testing for frame performance and safety: http://www.efbe.de/

Yes this is true and I'm well aware of EFBe. I don't think that was really your point though. It sure didn't stop those 2.5s from falling apart did it?

If you look at the list of manufacturers under their website test results, you'll see Cervelo, Scott, Cannondale, and others--but no Time. Is that because Time hasn't utilized their testing or refuses to release the results? I have no idea.

You have no idea and yet you continue on and on like you do. You're kind of making my point for me there.

You say your frame shows no sign of wear, but then the whole problem with Carbon is its catestrophic failure mode and the fact that visual inspection is not sufficient to detect potential failures.

I'm also well aware of this as well. We don't have a 100% gaurantee that won't happen with any carbon frame. I'm not too worried my frame is going have a catestrophic failure anytime soon barring that I don't crash the thing. ...as much as you seem to be vested in making me think otherwise.

This is a key reason why many airline industry people do not like its use in commercial aviation.

...and yet it is or will be used in considerable quantities on the 767, 787, A-380 and etc. and etc.

Do you know whether it has passed any fatigue tests?

No, we don't know whether it has passed any fatigue tests much like many other very nice frames on the market. That doesn't prove anything either way. Perhaps you might want to contact Time directly yourself and inquire.

Sure, Cervelo had a recall due to production problems, but that is different from inherent design flaws

So that's not a problem? Design and engineering flaws are the only thing that can be problem and production problems don't matter? ...and again you infer a design flaw with Time frames with absoluetly zip to prove it.

(Time also has a recall for their pedal on their website-it happens).

Are we talking about frames or pedals here?

All I"m saying is that greater transparency wouldn't be a bad thing in the frame industry

Yes greater transparency wouldn't be a bad thing but that's not all you're saying.

and that in its absence an imposed weight limit on a frame is a red flag because a well designed frame shouldn't have to represent such a tradeoff.

Here we go again... The weight limit is on specific model of seat post for which there is a suitable second version of that is designed to carry great weight. There is no tradeoff. There is no more a weight limit on the VXRS frame than there is on the R3 frame. You can claim whatever you want all day and night but that doesn't make it true.

"All I"m saying" ...may arse.

In terms of more specific manufacturer information and the fact that many companies produce lighter frames via reduced materials (resulting in weaker designs), here is information from the Velonews test and Cervelo's remarks about it:

"Check out these results, especially the stiffness-to-weight (STW) and torsion-to-weight (TTW) ratios which are the true measures of engineering competence. After all, IT IS EASY TO MAKE A LIGHT FRAME, JUST USE LESS MATERIAL. It's also easy to make a stiff frame, just use a lot of material. But to make a frame stiff and light, that requires engineering skills. With the R3 scoring 33% resp. 38% higher in STW and TTW than the next best frame in the test, it makes a real statement." (http://www.cervelo.com/news.aspx?m=About&i=CerveloNews#14)

If you look at the STW and TTW values presented in the Velonews test (reproduced at the link above) you'll see values ranging from STW=118 to the Cannondale Synapse at 50.9 for carbon frames and a TTW value of 54.1 to an ISAAC of 23.5. Those differences represent differences in design quality. The Litespeed Ghisallo does badly on both measures, so it is a good example of a manufacturer simply using less material to be able to say it is the lightest frame. That isn't to say it isn't a safe frame, but you'd want to know what fatigue tests it is subjected to given its poor performance.

There are also aspects such as geometry, fit and finish quality. According to many who've owned one such as RBR member C-40 the R3 doesn't really shine in these other areas. As much as the notion seems to be in vogue these days STW and TTW are not what ultimately makes a frame great or not.

To explain the ride of a frame, “stiffness” and “power transfer” are two terms easily cited, made generic, and these days often vulgarized. While these are indeed important factors, they aren’t the only qualities to look at with respect to a frame. Cyfac considers what we call the “reactivity” of the frame relative to the power of the rider using it.

Stiff for one person may not be stiff for another. Or, for certain events/distances/types of riding, an overly stiff frame can have a significant performance disadvantage for the rider. This is why we look at 1) the rider-machine as a symbiotic pairing and 2) the performance of the frame relative to the morphological and physical characteristics of the individual using it.

Sean Kelly rode on the Vitus frames and Laurent Fignon, as well as the entire Gitane Team, rode on Cyfac-built Reynolds series bikes. They were ultra-light for the time and considerably flexible. But this flex actually permitted these riders to have a frame that was “reactive” under all circumstances. As long as the flexibility isn’t too great (i.e., it still permits the transmission of the rider’s energy) it is important—indeed, fundamental--in the reactivity, or dynamics, of the bike. In these examples the frames were of the proper stiffness/reactivity for Kelly and Fignon to have such successful performances. However, for a larger/stronger rider these frames may not have been optimal and, conversely, a super light-weight rider may have even found them too stiff!

We like to look at the example of the pole-vaulter Sergei Bubka who was the only athlete capable of bending the ultra-stiff pole that he used. That was the right piece of equipment for him because he could realize its potential. Other competitors couldn’t even begin to use his equipment; they had to find the right combinations of stiffness/reactivity that were suited to them. The same principle applies with a frame (at the bottom bracket). --- Aymeric Le Brun

Bike Fitting – The Cyfac Philosophy
Pez Cycling, Wednesday, September 28, 2005

So, tell me what do you know about Time?

Since you don't seem to know much yourself what would you like to know? I never claimed to know everything but I do know some things. Again, perhaps you should contact Time directly yourself to find out whatever it is that you might want to know. :thumbsup:

stevesbike

11-30-2006, 07:21 AM

rocco

11-30-2006, 10:03 AM

the reason I included a comment about my background was because you keep insinuating that race frames aren't designed for "a general rider such as yourself" to quote you from a few posts back and that such riders would be better suited to sticking with the "volvos" of the bike world. My only point-really-is that there should be no need to make a distinction between the Enzos, Volvos, dragsters, etc of the bike world because the highest performance frame sold to consumers should be designed to withstand more than the actual forces it will encounter (barring crashes) over its life and should have undergone fatigue tests to ensure it will be rideworthy for many years. Moreover, I think many consumers believe that when they spend 3 or 4k on a frame, it will serve them in this way. The fact is, however, most of the time we don't know whether this is true or not. I merely used your Time frame as an example; I have no specific reason to suspect it-but then the lack of published, or better yet, independent testing, for that frame means a consumer has little more than a company's reputation as evidence for its design.

The fact that it is "race-proven" is potentially misleading in terms of its durability. I also alluded to my background because as someone who has raced for 20+ years, it has been part of the culture of high-level bike racing to change frames far more frequently than a traditional consumer would; often this is due to changes in sponsorship, but it was also due in part to the feeling that a frame is "used up" after a hard season of racing. Pros switch frames more frequently, so saying a frame is race-proven does little to say much about its durability. After a season of hard riding a frame isn't typically poorer in terms of its response, stiffness, etc; racers are worried about the accumulated stress and the probability of catastrophic failure. But, then, do you think a typical consumer would shell out 3-4k on a frame if they felt they would get a year or two of riding out of it? The technology for producing long-lived, high-performance frames, the capacity for finite element analysis methods for both static and dynamic tests-which would have required a supercomputer just a few years ago- and advances in materials science mean that manufacturers should be able to produce great, high-performance, long-lasting frames that also push the envelope. I honestly don't know whether all manufacturers make use of these as much as they could-as a consumer plunking down 3-4k I'd want to see evidence that this is the case.

I consider anybody who isn't currently making a living by racing bikes to be a general rider. Perhaps I'm mistaken and you currently make a living by racing bikes. ...though if you started racing 20 + years ago it's somewhat unlikely that you do. I apologize if you in fact do.

You dishonestly altered what I said to change the context and put it quotes. Shame on you. If dr hoo were the mod for this section he would nail you for it. I said, "there aren't many (though there are a few, ex. Magnus Backstedt) elite professional road cyclists that weigh more than 85Kg. Why would forcing a 60Kg racer like Paolo Bettini to use a heavier component that is only necessary for 85Kg + rider (or general rider such as yourself) equal good design?"

First you expressed concern based on what apparently happened with Tom Boonen and his custom frame. You said, "Personally, I'd be suspicious of a frame manufacturer that can't make a carbon frame that can hold up in a sprint". As if you or 99.9% of the rest of the population is using his very large and long custom sized frame and can sprint with the same amount of power. I would never ever remotely claim that I have the power and jump of Tom Boonen but unless your pretty much a pure sprinter I bet I can out jump and out sprint your pro legs. I have little doubt that if I had ever lived near a velodrome during my youthful years that I could have been very very good at sprint events on the track. I'll let that stand for my share of crowing here. Now with that being said, I'm here to tell you that I never had such a problem with my bike unless it was out of tune.

You said, "Not that an average rider is going to cause chain skip with their jump, but I'd be worried that it is a sign of poor design." but then go on and on about your concern that the "traditional consumer" not being incapable of making a sound purchasing choice, being endangered and esentially being duped.

You said, "Don't worry that lightness comes from flimsy tubing. Most people buying the bike will do so as a vanity frame anway and will never race it..." That sounds like you're either speaking from experience or you're trying to say you're above it all. ...and don't tell me there was never one degree of vanity in any of your purchases.

I drive a Volvo and I consider myself a general rider even though I too have a 20+ year background with wrenching, riding and racing. I also expect that any frame regardless of cost should be designed and manufactured to withstand more than the actual forces it will encounter (barring crashes) over its life and should be roadworthy for many years. Appropriate fatigue tests and quality control to help ensure that frames are structurally sound are good things to have. You should lobby your local congressional reps to require the designs of all frames sold in the US be tested.

Your assertion that you merely used Time frames as an example is disingenuous and you know it. Your posts have been filled with accusations regarding Time frames based on flawed logic, assumptions, rumor and hearsay. (see example below) You've presented not one shread of credible evidence that supports your accusations. You know it and now your back pedaling.

Personally, I'd be suspicious of a frame manufacturer that can't make a carbon frame that can hold up in a sprint--Boonen's early season mishaps in sprints were caused by a noodle of a Time frame, requiring them to customize a bike for him. It is not hard to design a carbon frame that is both light and stiff-the Cervelo R3 is both the lightest and stiffest frame around (velonews test). Not that an average rider is going to cause chain skip with their jump, but I'd be worried that it is a sign of poor design.

Now you're making a sweeping accusation that a significant number of 3 or 4k frames aren't road-worthy for more than a year or two which is bull shite. Again not one precise example you've offered to support your claim. In fact the only example was provided by me and ironically that frame was tested in every way that is advocated. You've conceded that you have no specific reason to suspect yet you continue to make accusations.

"Race-proven" can potentially be misleading in terms of its durability because a sponsor can change out frames wheels and components as needed. You write about the culture of high-level bike racing and the tendency to change frames far more frequently than a traditional consumer would. You said, "often this is due to changes in sponsorship, but it was also due in part to the feeling that a frame is "used up" after a hard season of racing." Well no duh... elite cyclists put their equipment through way more stress cycles in six months than the average consumer/rider does in years. Elites train and race 3, 4, 5 and 6 hundred miles per week and then there's constant traveling conditions that go with it. Naturally a pro or elite amateur my worried about the accumulated stress and the probability of catastrophic failure. Such worries may be warranted or they may not but when you can order a new frame for free then naturally you get a new frame. The companies that supply the frames want their newest top tier product under the their riders arse ASAP.

The vast majority of typical consumer who shells out 3-4k on a frame do get a years of safe pleasure and use out their frames. I have no idea where you get this notion that they don't. Yes technology continues to get better and better. Computing power and advances in materials science mean that manufacturers can... and most do, produce great, high-performance, long-lasting frames that also push the envelope. You don't know whether all manufacturers make use of these but you make accusations anyway. If you want to find evidence that they do then stop wasting your time here making unfounded claims and worrying like Chicken Little; contact you manufacturer of choice and ask. :idea:

stevesbike

11-30-2006, 01:30 PM

52-16SS

11-30-2006, 01:51 PM

So Colnago, LOOK, Parlee, Time etc, who do CF lugs are not serious frame designers?

stevesbike

11-30-2006, 03:13 PM

They are not taking full advantage of CF as a frame material, yes. See the following links for a reiteration of my statment, which I don't think is controversial. It stems from the fact that CF is not isotropic like other materials, so it offers ways to utilize this property that can only be achieved by a layup that avoids traditional external lugs. It is also uncontroversial that the lug/tube joint is the weakest part of a frame, and focuses stress there. Cervelo, BMC and others use a CF layup that distributes stresses more evenly and takes advantage of CF's properties.

A framemaker may use external lugs because 1) it offers more sizing flexibility, 2) is more traditional, 3) is easier to bring to market, but it is not utilizing the full capacity of CF.

See the Cafee white paper for more on this

http://www.cervelo.com/slideshow.aspx?id=1

http://www.calfeedesign.com/whitepaper7.htm

rocco

11-30-2006, 05:28 PM

Ok, now it's my turn to object to unsubstantiated claims: do you know what percentage of say 5-year old carbon fibre frames are still being ridden, or the average total miles a carbon fiber frame gets prior to being taken out of service? I'll bet you it's lower than you think. Velonews chose a 1999 Trek OCLV for their recent frame stiffness test and only found a delamination in the BB area as the result of inconsistencies in their analysis. Who knows if this would have resulted in a failure, and who knows what the incidence rate is among older frames. I'm sure you've spent lots of time hanging around racers and serious bike shops and know there's nothing rare about serious riders coming in with frames that show separations/cracks/dings at serious locations.

In terms of Time, I was trying not to focus on your frame, but you're right: I do take the fact that Boonen has had many well-publicized incidents of his bike screwing up in sprints as a sign that it's a poor design. He's had near crashes/losses due to chain skip as the result of his deflecting the frame at the Tour, Paris-Nice, etc. First, he's not even over theweight-limit you mention-according to his official website he's 80kg. Sure, he's a powerful rider, but just about every team has a sprinter that exerts a tremendous amount of power. Backstead has 20 pounds on him. In the US Marty Nothstein riders for Navigators and as a prior match sprinter produces more power than Boonen. I used to race weekly in San Diego with Ken Carpenter, who had 50 pounds of muscle on Boonen, and I never saw a chain skip on his bike. I don't even recall Sean Kelly ever losing a srpint due to chain skip, and he averaged 20 some wins a year while on a Vitus (the extremely tight end of the 979 made it stiffer than often asserted). Also, it's not like Boonen is doing a track stand and making a jump from standing still; most of the intertial energy has already been overcome when he makes a jump at say 60km in a final burst, which is mostly top end speed. It's downright pathetic that he's lost races due to his frame.

Deflecting a frame to the point that the chain actually skips gears - even by a powerful rider - is the sign of a poor frame. Show me one example of this happening in the pro peloton to another rider. Now you say in another post that BB torsion strength is not that big of a deal and quote a passage saying that rider deflection actually produces a nice ride. Sorry but that's pure myth propogated probably by makers of flimsy frames. First, deflection due to rider pedal force is energy lost. period. Second, the forces that have to be counteracted to produce a comfortable frame have nothing to do with BB torsion strength since lateral and vertical characteristics of a frame are distinct; if designed well, a carbon fiber bike can be laterally strong to produce high BB torsion strength and vertically compliant to produce comfort. That's an advantage of carbon fiber as its orientation can be used to produce frames with these properties. The one thing that rider-induced deflection does produce is mechanical stress at the points where tubes meet: since this is where opposing forces converge. On a Time that's at its external lugs, so I would expect that the accumulation of those forces over time would increase the chance of separation at those joints-this is where most lugged C-F frames fail. I've gone through multiple older Looks due to this.

Also, no serious frame designer will defend the use of external lugs with carbon fiber. It limits the properties of CF and is a relic of old-world thinking with steel and lug assembly.

I do hope that Time's design is more progressive than their old-world views on gender. According to their website:

"Cladding is a 100% female task. As with sewing or embroidery, this work requires
precision that is more easily achieved with very delicate fingers."

"Applying the stickers is a 100% female task. The extreme precision requirements mean the work is more easily performed by female fingers."

I guess they are over-priced because of the high labor costs of having so many French women putting on their stickers...nothing old-world about that...

Frankly I don't care what percentage of 5-year old carbon fibre frames are still being ridden because I've never used a frame for more than 3 year but why don't you go ahead show us the answer? I'm not impressed by the story about Trek made 7 or 8 years ago. From what I've seen OCLVs from the 1990s were notorious for such problems and I know several people who had their OCLVs replaced by Trek. There's nothing rare about serious riders coming in with frames that show separations/cracks/dings at serious locations because of the degree of abuse such frames tend to get. That has always been the case going back long before carbon frames.

My frame... You're telling me I own one of Boonen's frames?

Have you ever considered that Boonen's shifting problems weren't really about the frame? Have you really ever found a substantiated report that verifies that the problem was due to the frame? I sure haven't. It was initially pointed to as the problem but I've seen nothing that verifies the frame as the culprit. ...lot's of rumors but no official reports. Backstead's lugged Look 585, Marty Nothstein's C-50 and Sean Kelly's lugged 979... Do you actually think a 797 is more rigid than a VXRS? None of those frames are significantly more rigid than the VXRS if they are at all but for some reason the Time supposedly has this problem but the others apparently don't. There have been many many frames that were less rigid than Time frames and yet you can't site one example of any frame that ever was the reason why a chain actually skips gears. That doesn't add up. Again, you're kind of helping me make the point that's contrary to your own notions. It's downright pathetic that you pretend to know what the problem really was.

Another mischaracterization you seem to be grasping at is that the VXRS has a BB with exceptionally low torsion strength which again is false. It doesn't even have poor torsion rigidity. The numbers have been listed in Tour magazine and they've been posted on this site. Use the search function to look it up.

What's really pathetic is your continuing to misquote and mischaracterize things I've said. I never said in any post that "BB torsion strength is not that big of a deal" as you claim. Prove it. Show us. I don't have much patience for people who can't have a conversation without lying. That is down right pathetic. I did post a quote by Aymeric Le Brun of Cyfac who you claim is a maker "of flimsy frames". You claim that the passage simply says that rider deflection actually produces a nice ride which again is not correct. You're fabricating another mischaracterization. Yes, the forces that have to be counteracted to produce a comfortable frame have nothing to do with BB torsion strength since lateral and vertical characteristics of a frame are distinct. But guess what? Aymeric Le Brun never specifically claimed that BB torsion strength is related to a "nice ride" and he never even used the word bottom bracket or BB torsion. You accuse others of propogating pure myth which so ironic coming from you. Frankly you're behaviour is quite offensive.

You said, "also, no serious frame designer will defend the use of external lugs with carbon fiber. It limits the properties of CF and is a relic of old-world thinking with steel and lug assembly." That's laughable overstatement. Lugged carbon frames have crossed the finish line first more than other type of carbon frame. ...Christ, you sound like Donald Rumsfeld there.

What point are you trying make about the employment of women with delicate fingers? Perhaps you think frame building is the sole domain of men. You said, "I guess they are over-priced because of the high labor costs of having so many French women putting on their stickers...nothing old-world about that..." Well perhaps you would approve if the site said something else... like.

"Cladding is a 100% Chinese task. As with sewing or embroidery, this work requires
precision that is more easily achieved with very delicate Chinese fingers."

or

"Applying the stickers is a 100% Taiwanese task. The extreme precision requirements mean the work is more easily performed by Taiwanese fingers."

Now go ahead and have the last word. Maybe you can dish up some more lies and mischaracterization.

stevesbike

12-01-2006, 08:02 AM

Geez, did you go to a night class at the Bill Clinton School of Sophistry or something? Your feigned moral indignation at being mischaracterized is-frankly-a pretty sophmoric attempt to hide the fact that you have little substantive by way of reply. A case in point:

Your indignation: "I never said in any post that "BB torsion strength is not that big of a deal" as you claim. Prove it. Show us."

Ok, in an earlier post you stated:

"As much as the notion seems to be in vogue these days STW and TTW are not what ultimately makes a frame great or not." Since TTW is measuring BB torsional strength, it sure sounds like you are saying that TTW is not the determinant of a good frame. You then go on to quote at length a statement from Aymeric Le Brun that starts and ends with a view that BB flex underlies the "reactivity" of a frame. You then have the gall to say that

"You claim that the passage simply says that rider deflection actually produces a nice ride which again is not correct. You're fabricating another mischaracterization" and you say:

'Aymeric Le Brun never specifically claimed that BB torsion strength is related to a "nice ride" and he never even used the word bottom bracket or BB torsion'

Sorry, but that is exactly what Brun's quote says: Maybe you should read what you quote first: he ends the quote with

"The same principle applies with a frame (at the bottom bracket). --- Aymeric Le Brun"

Gee, sure looks to me like Brun uses the word bottom bracket to me, or were you excluding it because he put it in parentheses. Here's the principle in his words:

"But this flex actually permitted these riders to have a frame that was “reactive” under all circumstances. As long as the flexibility isn’t too great (i.e., it still permits the transmission of the rider’s energy) it is important—indeed, fundamental--in the reactivity, or dynamics, of the bike." and ends with The same principle applies with a frame (at the bottom bracket). "

Sure sounds like Brun is saying that BB flex makes for a nice ride; "reactive" is that French for noodle? If you say it with a strong French accent is sounds impressive reactiiiiiiiive, oui c'est bon!

Brun's statement--which may I presume you are endorsing since you insert it in your statement against TTW--is in fact based on a faulty understanding of physics. That's what I said, and you're just wrong that TTW is not what ultimately makes a frame great. Sorry, just plain wrong. high TTW is the most important measure of a frame's efficiency because contrary to Brun's statement rider energy that is translated into frame deflection is simply energy lost. In other words, your statement regarding TTW is wrong. You've already acknowledged that the lateral and vertical forces acting on a frame are distinct. The idea that high TTW results in a harsh frame is a myth. That's right, a myth.

Another example: you state:

"My frame... You're telling me I own one of Boonen's frames?"

Umm, of course I didn't mean you owned literally one of his frames, since I'm assuming you didn't steal one from his garage. But here is a quote from one of your earlier posts:

"I love my VXRS but with that being said, the Look 595 Ultra and the Pina Paris carbon are on my radar for my next frame" 2 Weeks Ago, 02:36 AM

Sorry buddy but yeah that's you claiming you own a VXRS...so much loyalty to Time you're considering others... maybe it's because you say:

"When I firmly grasp the saddle and stem on my VXRS and push one and tug the other with some effort I can make the frame flex laterally but whether it's enough to make much of difference in how the bike performs in it's intended use for me or anyone else seems dubious"

Holy crap...that's downright scary. Sounds to me like you're making lots of excuses for spending 4k on a french noodle.

So, before you accuse someone of mischaracterizing what you say maybe you should firest read what you quote. Finally, the fact that lugged carbon frames have crossed the finish line more than any other type of carbon frame (I guess you're not including Tours in this, CSC victories etc), is a red herring. My statement was that external lugged carbon frames limit the properties of CF. What frames have won or not is completely beside the point with respect to that statement. Find one statement from a frame designer that says that traditional lugged CF frames represent the fullest use of CF properties. You won't find one because it's not true; its not even controversial. In fact, the traditional diamond frame design remains mainly because of UCI restrictions; CF without those restrictions would be able to make more optimized frames.

rocco

12-01-2006, 11:49 AM

but I'm sorry your reply is.... well it isn't sophmoric, it's sophomoric.

Geez, did you go to a night class at the Bill Clinton School of Sophistry or something? Your feigned moral indignation at being mischaracterized is-frankly-a pretty sophmoric attempt to hide the fact that you have little substantive by way of reply. A case in point:
Indeed, that's ironic coming from you.

Nothing is being feigned over here. You've intentionally used ellipses to alter other peoples phrases and then putting them in quotes repeatedly. That's a about as pathetic it gets. Indeed it is you who has used a sophomoric ploy to attempt to hide the fact that you have little substantive by way of reply.

Your indignation: "I never said in any post that "BB torsion strength is not that big of a deal" as you claim. Prove it. Show us."

I never said that. ...nice try.

Ok, in an earlier post you stated:

"As much as the notion seems to be in vogue these days STW and TTW are not what ultimately makes a frame great or not." Since TTW is measuring BB torsional strength, it sure sounds like you are saying that TTW is not the determinant of a good frame. You then go on to quote at length a statement from Aymeric Le Brun that starts and ends with a view that BB flex underlies the "reactivity" of a frame.

Another ellipsis...

I said, "there are also aspects such as geometry, fit and finish quality. According to many who've owned one such as RBR member C-40 the R3 doesn't really shine in these other areas. As much as the notion seems to be in vogue these days STW and TTW are not what ultimately makes a frame great or not."

Now addmittedly I could have phrased my point a little better. My intended point is that STW and TTW are a part of what makes but they are not the only aspects that ultimately make a frame great. STW and TTW tend to overplayed while geometry, fit and finish quality tend to be underemphasized.

You even said this sort of thing yourself, "I agree that stiffness in frames has become a maketing ploy, but then so has weight even more, and the quest for light weight has resulted in questionable design decisions that often result in products that are more likely to fail under normal loads."

On the other hand you contradict yourself when you said this, ""Check out these results, especially the stiffness-to-weight (STW) and torsion-to-weight (TTW) ratios which are the true measures of engineering competence. After all, IT IS EASY TO MAKE A LIGHT FRAME, JUST USE LESS MATERIAL. It's also easy to make a stiff frame, just use a lot of material. But to make a frame stiff and light, that requires engineering skills. With the R3 scoring 33% resp. 38% higher in STW and TTW than the next best frame in the test, it makes a real statement." (http://www.cervelo.com/news.aspx?m=A...CerveloNews#14)"

You then have the gall to say that

What was that all about regarding feigned moral indignation?

"You claim that the passage simply says that rider deflection actually produces a nice ride which again is not correct. You're fabricating another mischaracterization" and you say:

'Aymeric Le Brun never specifically claimed that BB torsion strength is related to a "nice ride" and he never even used the word bottom bracket or BB torsion'

Sorry, but that is exactly what Brun's quote says: Maybe you should read what you quote first: he ends the quote with

My mistake regarding his use of the words "bottom bracket". However, he never said that BB torsion strength is related to a "nice ride".

"The same principle applies with a frame (at the bottom bracket). --- Aymeric Le Brun"

Another ellipsis by you.

"We like to look at the example of the pole-vaulter Sergei Bubka who was the only athlete capable of bending the ultra-stiff pole that he used. That was the right piece of equipment for him because he could realize its potential. Other competitors couldn’t even begin to use his equipment; they had to find the right combinations of stiffness/reactivity that were suited to them. The same principle applies with a frame (at the bottom bracket)." --- Aymeric Le Brun

Gee, sure looks to me like Brun uses the word bottom bracket to me, or were you excluding it because he put it in parentheses.

Yes I admit I missed that... my bad.

Here's the principle in his words:

"But this flex actually permitted these riders to have a frame that was “reactive” under all circumstances. As long as the flexibility isn’t too great (i.e., it still permits the transmission of the rider’s energy) it is important—indeed, fundamental--in the reactivity, or dynamics, of the bike." and ends with The same principle applies with a frame (at the bottom bracket). "

That's another huge ellipsis in quotes you're pushing. Did you even take a college bound English course in high school?

Aymeric Le Brun: To explain the ride of a frame, “stiffness” and “power transfer” are two terms easily cited, made generic, and these days often vulgarized. While these are indeed important factors, they aren’t the only qualities to look at with respect to a frame. Cyfac considers what we call the “reactivity” of the frame relative to the power of the rider using it.

Stiff for one person may not be stiff for another. Or, for certain events/distances/types of riding, an overly stiff frame can have a significant performance disadvantage for the rider. This is why we look at 1) the rider-machine as a symbiotic pairing and 2) the performance of the frame relative to the morphological and physical characteristics of the individual using it.

Sean Kelly rode on the Vitus frames and Laurent Fignon, as well as the entire Gitane Team, rode on Cyfac-built Reynolds series bikes. They were ultra-light for the time and considerably flexible. But this flex actually permitted these riders to have a frame that was “reactive” under all circumstances. As long as the flexibility isn’t too great (i.e., it still permits the transmission of the rider’s energy) it is important—indeed, fundamental--in the reactivity, or dynamics, of the bike. In these examples the frames were of the proper stiffness/reactivity for Kelly and Fignon to have such successful performances. However, for a larger/stronger rider these frames may not have been optimal and, conversely, a super light-weight rider may have even found them too stiff!

We like to look at the example of the pole-vaulter Sergei Bubka who was the only athlete capable of bending the ultra-stiff pole that he used. That was the right piece of equipment for him because he could realize its potential. Other competitors couldn’t even begin to use his equipment; they had to find the right combinations of stiffness/reactivity that were suited to them. The same principle applies with a frame (at the bottom bracket).

Sure sounds like Brun is saying that BB flex makes for a nice ride; "reactive" is that French for noodle? If you say it with a strong French accent is sounds impressive reactiiiiiiiive, oui c'est bon!

I'll just let that noose hang around your neck on it's own.

Brun's statement--which may I presume you are endorsing since you insert it in your statement against TTW--is in fact based on a faulty understanding of physics. That's what I said, and you're just wrong that TTW is not what ultimately makes a frame great. Sorry, just plain wrong. high TTW is the most important measure of a frame's efficiency because contrary to Brun's statement rider energy that is translated into frame deflection is simply energy lost. In other words, your statement regarding TTW is wrong. You've already acknowledged that the lateral and vertical forces acting on a frame are distinct. The idea that high TTW results in a harsh frame is a myth. That's right, a myth.

I endorse his statement that, "to explain the ride of a frame, “stiffness” and “power transfer” are two terms easily cited, made generic, and these days often vulgarized. While these are indeed important factors, they aren’t the only qualities to look at with respect to a frame."

Another example: you state:

"My frame... You're telling me I own one of Boonen's frames?"

Umm, of course I didn't mean you owned literally one of his frames, since I'm assuming you didn't steal one from his garage. But here is a quote from one of your earlier posts:

"I love my VXRS but with that being said, the Look 595 Ultra and the Pina Paris carbon are on my radar for my next frame" 2 Weeks Ago, 02:36 AM

Sorry buddy but yeah that's you claiming you own a VXRS...so much loyalty to Time you're considering others... maybe it's because you say:

Talking about sophistry... I love my VXRS. I'm never swore to any brand loyalty and nor is it required. I'm not allowed to have, appreciate and enjoy more than one brand of bike?

"When I firmly grasp the saddle and stem on my VXRS and push one and tug the other with some effort I can make the frame flex laterally but whether it's enough to make much of difference in how the bike performs in it's intended use for me or anyone else seems dubious"

Holy crap...that's downright scary. Sounds to me like you're making lots of excuses for spending 4k on a french noodle.

....with a dash of hyperbole.

I don't need to justify what I spend my own hard earned money to anybody.

So, before you accuse someone of mischaracterizing what you say maybe you should firest read what you quote. Finally, the fact that lugged carbon frames have crossed the finish line more than any other type of carbon frame (I guess you're not including Tours in this, CSC victories etc), is a red herring. My statement was that external lugged carbon frames limit the properties of CF. What frames have won or not is completely beside the point with respect to that statement. Find one statement from a frame designer that says that traditional lugged CF frames represent the fullest use of CF properties. You won't find one because it's not true; its not even controversial. In fact, the traditional diamond frame design remains mainly because of UCI restrictions; CF without those restrictions would be able to make more optimized frames.

You've show plenty of evidence of mischaracterizing on your own. You're entitled to your opinions... even if they're wrong. Please send you complaints regarding UCI restrictions to:

Pat McQuaid, UCI President
Union Cycliste Internationale
CH 1860 Aigle
Switzerland
Tel:+41 24 468 58 11
Fax:+41 24 468 58 12
E-mail: admin@uci.ch