Scott CR1 pro vs. Trek 5200 - Page 2
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 43 of 43
  1. #26
    TZL
    TZL is offline

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    146
    Divve,

    got the figures for the Giant TCR Comp, TCR Advance and the two Felt carbon frames?

    Quote Originally Posted by divve
    Custom isn't just about fit. It's also tuning handling properties specifically to your requirements. You can select a specific headset and fork, then match the head tube angle to suit that particular rake and stack height, in order to accurately achieve a desired rake. Additional choices such as stay lengths, top tube slope degree, and stiffness to weight trade-offs can also be adapted to your needs.

    >and isn't this method what Parlee uses
    Parlee uses lugs.

    Scott CR1 Limited - 925g (tube - tube joining)
    headtube stiffness: 84 Nm/deg.
    BB stiffness: 101 Nm/deg.

    Canyon F-10 - 1049g (tube - tube joining)
    headtube stiffness: 113 Nm/deg.
    BB stiffness: 127Nm/deg.

    Spin 800g - 1000g (tube - tube joining)
    headtube stiffness: fully custom 85 -120 Nm/deg. (basically anything you desire)
    BB stiffness: fully custom 100 - 130 Nm/deg. (basically anything you desire)

    Look 585 - 1079
    headtube stiffness: 68 Nm/deg.
    BB stiffness: 91 Nm/deg.

    Colnago C-50 - 1505g
    headtube stiffness: 80Nm/deg.
    BB stiffness: 97Nm/deg.

    Time VXRS Module - 1044g
    headtube stiffness: 63Nm/deg.
    BB stiffness: 91Nm/deg.

    Was that enough numbers for you?
    Giant TCR Composite, Campy Record 10 Carbon w/ DA10 7800 cranks, Zero Gravity 05-Ti Brakes, Lew Sydneys, FSA K-Wing, FSA-OS-115 Stem, Speedplay. 6300grams/13.88lbs

    Giant TCR Team Aluminum, Easton EC90SL Fork, Shimano DA9, Mavic Ksyrium SL

    Giant MCR Aero, Easton Aero Fork, Easton Carbon controls, Spinergy X-Aero Extralights (yes, dangerous, i know!)

    Also Giant MCM Team and Giant NRS Team Composite

    85,000 gram rider.........

  2. #27

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    2,601
    Custom isn't just about fit. It's also tuning handling properties specifically to your requirements. You can select a specific headset and fork, then match the head tube angle to suit that particular rake and stack height, in order to accurately achieve a desired trail. Additional choices such as stay lengths, top tube slope degree, and stiffness to weight trade-offs can also be adapted to your needs.

    >and isn't this method what Parlee uses
    Parlee uses lugs.

    Scott CR1 Limited - 925g (tube - tube joining)
    headtube stiffness: 84 Nm/deg.
    BB stiffness: 101 Nm/deg.

    Canyon F-10 - 1049g (tube - tube joining)
    headtube stiffness: 113 Nm/deg.
    BB stiffness: 127Nm/deg.

    Spin 800g - 1000g (tube - tube joining)
    headtube stiffness: fully custom 85 -120 Nm/deg. (basically anything you desire)
    BB stiffness: fully custom 100 - 130 Nm/deg. (basically anything you desire)

    Look 585 - 1079
    headtube stiffness: 68 Nm/deg.
    BB stiffness: 91 Nm/deg.

    Colnago C-50 - 1505g
    headtube stiffness: 80Nm/deg.
    BB stiffness: 97Nm/deg.

    Time VXRS Module - 1044g
    headtube stiffness: 63Nm/deg.
    BB stiffness: 91Nm/deg.

    Was that enough numbers for you?

  3. #28

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    2,601
    TZL,

    I only have the numbers on the Giant TCR and Advanced. Note however that the latter is in constant development and seems to get stiffer in every new incarnation (due to their work with T-Mobile).

    Current TCR Advanced - 1030g
    headtube stiffness: 67Nm/deg.
    BB stiffness: 86 Nm/deg.

    TCR Composite - 1100g
    headtube stiffness: 56 Nm/deg.
    BB stiffness: 101 Nm/deg.

    New development TCR Advanced - 1079g
    headtube stiffness: 73 Nm/deg.
    BB stiffness: 98 Nm/deg.

    (the new frame in development also appears to have significantly more trail for increased steering stability)





    BTW, could you edit that typo in your quote with my text so it makes sense? "desired rake" should read "desired trail".

  4. #29

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    1,859
    Quote Originally Posted by divve
    As stated in my original post the tube to tube joining method creates an almost single coherent unit between the tubes. That's what separates this technique from simply gluing or using a lug. FEA also shows that the forces aren't interrupted like in a lugged construction.
    This still isn't making any sense. How is any solid joint not a "single coherent unit"? A particular joining method may be stronger or weaker, or stiffer of more flexible, but as long as there is a continuous bond between the tubes, it will act as a single unit (this applies to welding and brazing, as well as gluing). I think you've been reading too much marketing literature. Also, how are forces "interrupted" in any type of construction? Doesn't that violate Newton's 3rd law?

  5. #30

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    2,601
    In every frame there are localized stress concentrations where the tubes connect. It requires more material to be placed in those areas using lugs in order to spread the stresses farther down the tubes. When it's too weak in those areas the frame won't act as a coherent unit. Excessive flexing will occur at the joints and you loose resilience and liveliness. That's what I meant by interrupted.

  6. #31
    glutton for punishment
    Reputation: peterpen's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    684
    Divve- thanks! this is fascinating stuff. Where did these numbers come from?

    And what are the Canyon F-12 and Spin frames? Google did me no good...

    Wouldn't it be cool if frame manufacturers were required to publish these numbers? Or better yet, some relatively objective 3rd party to test and weigh stuff? I'm not saying they'd ever be my *only* standards for choosing a frame, but it would be nice to have them readily available.

    As for Parlee, while they themselves refer to lugs (and the frames look like traditional lugs a la Look or Colnago) I think the 'lugs' are laid up individually on each frame. Check the first pic on their website.

    To the OP - sorry for hijacking yer first ever thread!

  7. #32

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    2,601
    The numbers come from the German Tour Magazin that I read. Agreed, you can't attribute any true "ride quality" properties to the numbers. All they can do is give you an indication in which direction you might want to start looking.

    www.canyon.de
    www.spin-system.de
    http://www.germancarbongroup.de/

    Parlee does indeed use a more elaborate/accurate system for their lugs. It's not like a Colnago for instance where the tubes are slid in and glued. It looks like they use something that's half-way between lugs and joining.

    Check last page of their catalog:
    http://www.parleecycles.com/PC2005cat.pdf

    BTW, the black bike was part of a study project set up with the proprietor of Spin and his university professor. The complete bike weighs 10.56lbs - frame ~850g/fork ~ 265g I believe.
    Attached Images Attached Images

  8. #33

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    128
    hi 1gunner
    I just bought a CR1, no regret, just one why I didn't bought before!
    This bike is a rocket, the only limit of this bike is you!
    Cheers

  9. #34
    Self-Banned
    Reputation: rocco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    16,905

    Here we go again...

    Another installment of the simplistic circle jerk known as "My frames stiffer than yours".

    How Stiff is Stiff?
    Pez: I recall reading that the Gitane-branded bikes built by Francis Quillon, founder of Cyfac, and ridden by the Renault team in the early 1980's were among the most flexible ones ever tested. This was also true of the Vitus 979's, but it has not stopped these bikes from being incredibly successful in professional racing (Fignon winning 2 Tours, Kelly winning lots of races including Paris-Roubaix). So besides bike "feel," just how important is stiffness from an engineering or efficiency perspective?

    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).

    Pez: When building up an entire bike, how important is it to match the stiffness of the frame/fork with that of other components (handlebars, stem, seatpost, wheels)? How is that done?

    Aymeric Le Brun: A frame equipped with the wrong wheels or components can see its road manner and power transfer affected negatively. A bike’s manner is the result of the association of the entire ensemble of parts (especially the frame and the wheels).
    A stiff frame (like the Cyfac TIGRE or NERV CARBON) can be further enhanced by the use of rigid wheels (like the Campagnolo EURUS or BORA, or the Mavic COSMIC CARBON) and by the use of full-carbon handlebars (like the ITM KSWORD).

    Alternately, these frames could have a more versatile set-ups with the use of accessories that are less rigid (Mavic KSYRIUM SL2 or CAMPAGNOLO Proton wheels) or non-oversized bars/stems (like the ITM MILLENIUM with a strada-bend bar). Of course, the overall ensemble of frame and parts should be set up to fit the profile of the individual rider, the type of riding, and the desired feel.

  10. #35

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    2,601
    A frame that rides good and is stiff is always better than one that isn't. No exceptions.

  11. #36
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: wipeout's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    1,160
    Quote Originally Posted by Max-Q
    There is another guy around here that always makes me laugh. Every Monday night group ride he shows up wearing his US Postal jersey. And I mean EVERY single ride he wears that same jersey. Then at the the state RR championship I actually spotted him and once again he was wearing that USPS jersey during the race.

    I'm guessing he only has one jersey. Or maybe he has a closet full of them. I'm beginning to wonder if he has hundreds of USPS jerseys. I'd like to ask him sometime but he always seems like a non-approachable pr!ck.
    I don't get guys like you, Max-Q. Why do you laugh at other cyclists because of what they wear? Hell, at least the dude is out riding, so what if he is supporting Discovery and his local LBS? I applaud anyone out there on a bike...

  12. #37
    Self-Banned
    Reputation: rocco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    16,905
    Quote Originally Posted by divve
    A frame that rides good and is stiff is always better than one that isn't. No exceptions.
    If the frame rides good (lively/responsive) for the individual who uses it. There plenty of examples of very powerful pros winning often on bikes that aren't the stiffest around.


    All the frames you mention don't even come close in the stiffness to weight ratio. It's not about making a "better" riding bike. It's about using less material and pushing the weight down while still maintaining structural integrity. The possibility to make fully custom frames on a very small scale with this method shouldn't be disregarded either.
    In this quote it seems like you're saying stiffness to weight ratio is the only important concidersation. Are you saying the mark of a great frame is only about using less material and pushing the weight down while still maintaining structural integrity? Making a "better" riding bike isn't? Making a lively or responsive frame isn't?

    If I understand you correctly, I don't agree.



    Agreed, you can't attribute any true "ride quality" properties to the numbers. All they can do is give you an indication in which direction you might want to start looking.
    This I do agree with.

  13. #38

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    2,601
    My point was, that you should try to go as stiff as possible without having to sacrifice the so called "ride quality" that you're looking for. In other words, if you find two equally well riding frames (if that's even possible), the stiffer of the two is preferred. I see no reason to give up stiffness when there's no apparent benefit behind it.

    In regards to stiffness to weight and preferred ride "feel", if you can have all those things that you desire, why not choose the lightest package that can offer it? For instance, let's say your Time VXRS for 2008 is only 350g, but doesn't sacrifice anything, including durability. Wouldn't it be obvious to choose it over one that's 3 times heavier?

  14. #39
    Self-Banned
    Reputation: rocco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    16,905
    Quote Originally Posted by divve
    My point was, that you should try to go as stiff as possible without having to sacrifice the so called "ride quality" that you're looking for. In other words, if you find two equally well riding frames (if that's even possible), the stiffer of the two is preferred. I see no reason to give up stiffness when there's no apparent benefit behind it.

    In regards to stiffness to weight and preferred ride "feel", if you can have all those things that you desire, why not choose the lightest package that can offer it? For instance, let's say your Time VXRS for 2008 is only 350g, but doesn't sacrifice anything, including durability. Wouldn't it be obvious to choose it over one that's 3 times heavier?

    Yes you should try to go as stiff and light as possible without having to sacrifice the so called "ride quality" but those numbers don't inform us about the ride quality. It seems that many eat up those sets of numbers regarding stiffness and weight as if they provide the complete answer. I suspect some people are looking at those numbers and they assume the lightest and stiffest frame listed must be the best one for them. The differences between these frames regarding weight and stiffness aren't by factors of three and on the same note I suspect some people think the differences between those numbers equal huge differences in terms real performance for them.

  15. #40
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    169

    CR 1 vs. Trek 5200

    Quote Originally Posted by 1gunner
    First time poster here. looking to move up from an older Trek 5200 to somthing a little newer. The '06 Felt F2 is also a consideration but not a frontrunner due to the fact that the felt dealer is 35 miles away.Thanks in advance.
    Went from an '04 5200 to a Specialized Roubaix Comp late last year.In baseball terms,riding the Roubaix was like removing the weighted warm-up "donut" from the bat. As an added bonus, the Roubaix rides smoother over rough roads. I can't speak for the Scott,but the 5200 definitely feels like "old tech" to me.

  16. #41
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,469

    not so fast! ok, just as fast! 8^)

    Quote Originally Posted by mick wolfe
    Went from an '04 5200 to a Specialized Roubaix Comp late last year.In baseball terms,riding the Roubaix was like removing the weighted warm-up "donut" from the bat. As an added bonus, the Roubaix rides smoother over rough roads. I can't speak for the Scott,but the 5200 definitely feels like "old tech" to me.
    ok, my 2 cents. I had a Roubaix Comp 2005 for 6 motnths before it was stolen from my house and I could not get another one for months (sold out) so I settled on a 2005 Madone 5.9 (same geometry as 5200?). I loved Roubaix Comp and expected Madone to be less of a smooth ride. To my surprise - not so! It rides just as well as Roubaix did and the only difference is that Madone is more responsive for criterium-type riding that Roubaix. Otherwise - both are terrific rides! This "old-tech" is pure bull, IMHO.

    My friend has CR-1 Pro and he loves it too! So there you have it. There are no losers here. Trek and Roubaix have better warranty (longer) than Scott to the best of my knowledge.

    Enjoy, ride safe. Cheers.

  17. #42
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    169
    Quote Originally Posted by acid_rider
    ok, my 2 cents. I had a Roubaix Comp 2005 for 6 motnths before it was stolen from my house and I could not get another one for months (sold out) so I settled on a 2005 Madone 5.9 (same geometry as 5200?). I loved Roubaix Comp and expected Madone to be less of a smooth ride. To my surprise - not so! It rides just as well as Roubaix did and the only difference is that Madone is more responsive for criterium-type riding that Roubaix. Otherwise - both are terrific rides! This "old-tech" is pure bull, IMHO.

    My friend has CR-1 Pro and he loves it too! So there you have it. There are no losers here. Trek and Roubaix have better warranty (longer) than Scott to the best of my knowledge.

    Enjoy, ride safe. Cheers.
    If you read the reviews of those who had previously owned a 5200 and then switched to the Madone 5.9, you'll find the consensus is the 5.9 is vastly superior in every way.....smoother ride ,more responsive,etc. My comments are about the "carbon 120" Trek 5200 vs. the Roubaix ....... not a " carbon 110 " Madone. I have no basis of comparison here. I do have 3000+ miles combined riding the 5200 and the Roubaix and will state until the day I take my "dirt nap" , the 5200 feels like "old tech" in comparison to the Roubaix. Ride safe.............Mick

  18. #43

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    45

    Scott CR1

    I just bought a "lowly" CR1 team (105 group)... Ended up 10% faster in the bike leg of the triathlon than when I went with my old steel bike. Technically slower course (half the course length but double the laps), and definite lack of bike training. I am also either keeping up with or dropping my roadie buddies on the rare hills. You can say I am 100% satisfied.

    Comfort wise, about the same as my >15 yr old old steel bike. Too cool!

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

THE SITE

ABOUT ROADBIKEREVIEW

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2020 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.