On Tuesday, January 10, 2017 at 3:06:30 PM UTC-8, wrote:
On Tuesday, January 10, 2017 at 2:26:04 PM UTC-8, wrote:
On Tuesday, January 10, 2017 at 9:56:04 PM UTC+1, wrote:
On Tuesday, January 10, 2017 at 11:33:43 AM UTC-8, wrote:
On Tuesday, January 10, 2017 at 3:48:20 PM UTC+1, wrote:
A friend who speaks Italian spoke with a bike builder in Italy who spoke to Ernesto Colnago. He verified that the problem with Carbon Fiber aside from possible manufacturing defects is that the resins grow more and more brittle with age. After two years or so they can grow so brittle that the ultra-lights can fail at any second. This is why Colnago will only give two year warranties and why they build their "light" bikes considerably heavier than other manufacturers.
Have a good ride on your CF when you can get the same weight with an aluminum frame.
Colnago doesn't have the know how to build light CF bikes that last and/or stiff enough so the answer of Ernesto doesn't surprise me.
Something like Kodak that didn't know anything about digital camera's.
Show me an aluminum frame of 850 grams. Any frame lighter than 1300 gram I prefer the CF one. YMMV.
Lou - what frame of ANY sort weighs a lb and three quarters?
My CF frame (850 gr doesn't include fork). Last 2 seasons I rode this bike
Best bike I ever had. I replaced the seat post with a Thomson Masterpiece because the CF Ritchey post kept creaking because of a design flaw.
I saw and Eddy Merckx aluminum frame and fork that weighed 4 lbs. On steel bike maker tells me that he is making 16 lb bikes all up.
What would YOU use a 12 lb all up bike for?
Climbing and descending famous mountain passes in Europe for instance this year (a selection):
What - are you the punk kid of the group? Your bike isn't geared particularly low. These days I'm seeing more and more compacts with a 34 on the back. And I thought my 39-28 was cheating after the 39-25. But I do carry a triple now do that anything over 14% I use the 30-25 or so. But there are VERY few extended climbs over 12% around here.
While the Gavia and the Umbrail aren't particularly high they are known for their difficulty because of the speed of the climbs by the pro peloton.
The first one I recognize but can't place it.
The death ride is about the same sort of riding and the roads are a whole lot better. It has a total climb of around 50,000 ft. But it isn't much fun. You have people flying by you only to be laying on the ground trying to catch their breath 5 miles further on. Somewhere or another I went over a pass that was over 10,000 ft. That's when the air REALLY gets thin.
Tom, are you talking about the Markleeville Death Ride? The standard version is about 15,000-16,000 feet of climbing. I did the six pass "Death Ride the 13th" that was closer to 19,000 (it included Pacific Grade and the back side of Ebbets Pass and Luther Pass), but that was a one-off deal. Ebbetts is under 9,000 feet. https://deathride.com/wp-content/upl...1/elemaplg.jpg
But 9,000 is high enough if you're coming from sea level. Tioga is the highest pass in California at 9940 feet, but it's not on the Death Ride.
The old Death Ride was more interesting -- Monitor/Monitor, Ebbetts, Luther and Carson. I think they dumped Luther because its the route to Lake Tahoe, and the tourists and locals probably didn't appreciate having the road shut down all day.
-- Jay Beattie.