My CF Adventure

On Mar 12, 5:20 pm, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Mar 12, 11:36 am, Duane Hébert wrote:



On 03/12/2013 02:26 PM, Jay Beattie wrote:

On Mar 12, 10:54 am, Lou Holtman wrote:
On 2013-03-11 20:09:19 +0000, Jay Beattie said:

So, my friend is trying to sell his Specialized Roubaix, and he set me
up on the bike for a ride last Saturday. Not withstanding my status as
former Cat 3 and Masters pack-filler and renowned commuter, I had
never ridden a CF bike more than a few hundred yards. This was going
to be something new and exciting for me.

After not enough fussing getting the seat height and tilt right, we
took off for a hilly ride of 50-60 miles -- wow, the frame was stiff
through the BB and, most noticeably, through the front end --
substantially stiffer than my Cannondale warranty-replacement CAAD 9.
The magical dampening of CF was also evident, sort of. It clipped the
low amplitude, high frequency vibration that I associate with a dry
chain or slightly rough pavement -- the sort of thing you might pick
up through your shoes. Significant pavement discontinuities were
probably more pronounced on the Roubaix than on my CAAD 9, and the the
sound of a popped rock hitting the DT made me think I broke the
frame. It was an acoustically new adventure. But, the minor
dampening plus the longish chain stays and stiff front end gave the
bike the bike a very smooth, step on the gas feel on good pavement.

Getting me to fit on this frame meant extending the CF seat post
probably a foot -- and it didn't want to stay there. It kept
slipping, and my friend was freaking out at the thought that I might
over-torque the binder bolt and break the post. His pocket tool,
however, was some weird piece of garbage (a tiny T-wrench) that
wouldn't let me over-torque -- or even adequately torque -- anything.
I probably stopped five or six times, and the post wouldn't stop
slipping -- probably because it did not have enough magical CF paste
on it. This sucked -- and small changes in seat post height worsened
the saddle tilt problems. The post had a one-bolt saddle carriage
mechanism -- so you loosen one bolt, and the whole tilt/fore-aft
adjustment goes flaccid. F*** that! This is why I buy Thompson Elite
posts with a two bolt system. You can Princess and the Pea them to
your heart's content.

We head to the first hill -- about a four mile climb with the first
mile maxing out at 10-12 percent, and the bike was very responsive and
fast-feeling, except the reach was too short, and climbing out of the
saddle, I was sometimes hitting the bars with my knees -- and the
position was odd to me because of the tall front end and relatively
short TT. I'm used to being more over my front wheel.

The steep parts felt fast, but when I sat down, I felt like I was
riding a BMX bike because of the slipping post. That sucked, and so
did the mis-positioned BG saddle. But I did get the sense that the
bike was light(er) and faster than my Cannondale -- and more solid,
which is a big deal since I am a large rider. It tracked
exceptionally well descending.

My friend was worried that I would over-torque the post, and I was
getting a sore back, so we only rode that climb and one other for a
total of 30-40 miles. Alas, on my way home, River City was running
its annual sale, and I tried the same bike in a 64cm, which was nice
-- post stayed up, more room in the cockpit, still too high in the
front end, but flipping the stem would fix that. I almost impulsed
purchased. I really do like the stiff feeling of the front end and
BB. I decided to wait and do some more shopping, if any.

Epilog -- I went out the next day on my CAAD 9. Ahhh, nothing like a
bike that fits. The bike is less stiff -- not like an old Alan, but it
does not have the same riding on a slightly padded rail feel as the
Roubaix. This is not a huge difference, but noticeable. I have come
to believe that all the hyperbole in the press reduces to minor
differences, at least among similarly priced and purposed bikes. I
did a lot of climbing on Sunday, and the Cannonodale's front end
definitely felt less stiff. It also has a slight caster feel to it,
which some might characterize as twitchiness -- but it tracks very
well on fast descents. I just liked sitting and climbing on the
Cannondale, which is something I didn't have a chance to do on the
Roubaix, and I didn't feel like I was getting sapped of energy while
sitting. It has a stiff BB. It's the out of the saddle efforts where
it lacks somewhat. I might invest in a nice, stiff CF frame, but its
not like I have to.

-- Jay Beattie.

Pretty useless to testride a bike that doesn't fit.

It fit until the post slipped -- so I would get moments of fitting,
although I could have spent more time on seat tilt and fore-aft. I
did ride the same bike later that day in the 64cm size that did not
have a slipping seat post, and my impressions were the same, although
the larger bike had considerable rise to the stem, so the front end
felt too high. The basic ride qualities, however, were the same.
It's like driving a car with an uncomfortable seat. You still get a
sense of the suspension, power, steering, etc.

I think that the analogy doesn't quite work with a bike though. A good
fit on the bike has a lot more to do with the steering, suspension and
power than a good fit in a car seat.

It's not an exact analogy, but in either case you can get a good sense
of performance by stepping on the gas. Out of the saddle efforts on
the Roubaix showed that it had an exceptionally rigid BB and front
end. Solid traction indicated that it had adequately long stays.
There was also no heel strike, which I can get on the short stays of
my CAAD 9 with my big feet. It tracked well, and descending was
precise, steering was good (although it required more input than my
CAAD 9 -- which may be a good thing), and shock absorption seemed good
-- but this is where bad fit limited my ability to really judge how
good. I also could not get into a groove climbing in the saddle
because of the slipping seat post and saddle position. I would like to
go out and do some of the longer local climbs (most closed by snow now
anyway) just to see how it feels after ten or twelve miles of
climbing. I think it would be pretty good, but my sense is that it
would only be better than the CAAD 9 because of lower weight since the
Cannondale is pretty stiff through the BB. Then again, I could be
surprised by the more upright riding position (if I stuck with that)
and the stiffer front end. Climbing with a death grip can cause the
front end to caster a little on the Cannondale, which usually means I
have to gear down or get out of the saddle for a while anyway. That's
just exhaustion.

What I don't get from those reviews you posted is the amazing shock-
absorbing effect. Bumps were bumps on 100 PSI 23mm tires. The
Roubaix didn't get rid of the bumps or significant discontinuities in
the road surface. It was more like letting 10-20psi out of my tires
without the performance loss -- which seems worthwhile, but all the
gushing about being "plush" etc. sort of escaped me. My cross bike
with 35s is plush. Maybe after trying some other CF frames, I'll get
the picture. There is an on-sale Cervelo R3 that I'm going to look at
next weekend.


Go, dog, go!

AND WHAT WOULD AN 'INORDINATE NUMBER' NUMBER ?

3 ? 17 ? 78 ?

how many club members ?

On Mar 16, 9:43 am, Duane Hébert wrote:
On 3/16/2013 9:41 AM, Dan O wrote:


On 3/16/2013 3:28 AM, SMS wrote:


snip


It's like Craftsman hand tools. They aren't actually very high
quality, Sears is selling the warranty as much as anything., When the
tools break the owner gets a replacement for free, and as with
bicycles, the warranty replacement costs the manufacturer very little..

Really! The lifetime replacement warranty does no good (and is a
little difficult to exercise) when the oil pan is off and the ratchet
breaks. (True story.)

Use Snap-on. Never had one break and I think that they still have the
same warranty.

Would have to get my hands on them first.

I have exactly one (1) Snap-on - a phillips screwdriver - "inherited"
it (honest, it just wound up in my toolbox somehow) from AMA National
#22 (a friend - and I don't drop that about every Tom, Dick and Hairy
like some folks) - so, sentimental value as *well* as hand tool
ecstasy.

On 03/16/2013 11:08 AM, Dan O wrote:

I have exactly one (1) Snap-on - a phillips screwdriver - "inherited"
it (honest, it just wound up in my toolbox somehow) from AMA National
#22 (a friend - and I don't drop that about every Tom, Dick and Hairy
like some folks) - so, sentimental value as *well* as hand tool
ecstasy.

One difference with Craftsman tools is that you bring the broken tool in
and get a warranty replacement, they don't ask for receipts and they
don't ask if you're the original owner. With bicycle frames the warranty
is only for the original owner. If the shop you bought the bicycle at is
gone then good luck finding another shop to go to bat for you.

One of my Facebook friends, a second cousin, is on her third CF
replacement frame, but she's not broken any forks AFAIK.

With a CF frame and fork you need to be extremely careful as to how you
carry the bicycle on a vehicle or repair it since you can't clamp the
frame, and you don't want to use a fork mount rack even if the dropouts
are aluminum.

On 03/16/2013 12:59 PM, Jay Beattie wrote:

So what explains the cost of custom steel frames? A custom steel
frame goes for $2-3K, and more than that for some builders -- e.g.
Vanilla here in PDX.

Steel frames have become a boutique item, custom made by hand,
individually. The few remaining mass produced steel frames aren't that
expensive.

Like I said, I'm riding on the third (?) replacement for a Cannondale
2.8 I purchased over 20 years ago. Yes, I had to go through short
periods of being without a "fast bike" while waiting for a warranty
replacement, but I also ended up with a newer and better frame. You
break a steel frame, braze it up, pay for the paint -- you're out of
pocket for paint $100 (assuming you can do your own brazing -- more
if not) and you have the same old frame. I like getting new frames
periodically, particularly if I don't have to pay for them.

That's fine. Just realize that unlike in the days of steel, the
"lifetime warranty" isn't because the frame is so great that it will
last for 50 years, it's to make buyers feel confident that when the
frame finally does break that they won't have to pay for the replacement.

With CF, it's too easy to damage the frame in a way that causes it to
fail, and then the warranty is void.

On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 13:09:19 -0700 (PDT), in rec.bicycles.tech Jay
Beattie wrote:

So, my friend is trying to sell his Specialized Roubaix, and he set me
up on the bike for a ride last Saturday.

Yeah... my friend is queer; he set me up for a ride, too (haha) ...

They say that it only hurts at first, and, after that, you like it.
They tell me to try it before I knock it...

I think I'll pass because it doesn't sound like much fun to me.

Jones

On Mar 16, 3:59*pm, Jay Beattie wrote:

So what explains the cost of custom steel frames? *A custom steel
frame goes for $2-3K, and more than that for some builders -- e.g.
Vanilla here in PDX. *Vanilla's generic Speedvagen goes for $3-4K.
Custom Vanilla goes for $4-5K, frame and fork. *I was quoted well
under $3K for a close-out 2012 Roubaix with all Ultegra. That's a
whole bike with nice components. I think that is a relative bargain --
and if it breaks, I get a new one . . . for life, and not for a year.
And I don't have to wait five years for delivery, which is the waiting
time for a custom Vanilla. *I would also end up with a lighter,
stiffer and better tuned frame. *You just can't customize steel in the
same way as you can CF or even hydroformed aluminum.

Hmm. I think that last sentence is precisely backwards.

What you can do with CF or hydroformed aluminum is mass produce bikes
with specially shaped tubes. But to me, "custom" means built to fit
the exact desires of the individual customer. That's where steel
excels, at least within its range of capabilities. A smart guy with
an oxyacetylene set and some simple tools can build a steel bike to
fit almost any person and almost any intended application.

IOW, if you want a special bike to fit a 4'9" woman and let her carry
100 pounds of ceramic vases over the front wheel, it's going to have
to be steel. If you have 1000 women that size who want the same exact
thing, you can begin negotiating with a Chinese company to have them
done in hydroformed aluminum - but even 1000 will be high priced, due
to tooling costs.

It's true that fine custom steel frames are currently expensive. I
don't think custom steel has to be as expensive as it is, though. I
think the prices are driven partly by the trendiness (in certain
quarters) and by the tendency to make these bikes as objets d'art. By
keeping fancy lugwork to a minimum (or using MIG welding) and doing
only as much finishing as needed for good appearance at ten feet, I
think a good steel frame could be sold for much less than $1000. Even
with American labor.

It's true it wouldn't be as light and stiff as a modern aluminum or CF
bike. But it could be less fragile, and be actually "custom" as well,
for those with unusual needs.

- Frank Krygowski

On Mar 16, 9:15 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Mar 16, 3:59 pm, Jay Beattie wrote:



So what explains the cost of custom steel frames? A custom steel
frame goes for $2-3K, and more than that for some builders -- e.g.
Vanilla here in PDX. Vanilla's generic Speedvagen goes for $3-4K.
Custom Vanilla goes for $4-5K, frame and fork. I was quoted well
under $3K for a close-out 2012 Roubaix with all Ultegra. That's a
whole bike with nice components. I think that is a relative bargain --
and if it breaks, I get a new one . . . for life, and not for a year.
And I don't have to wait five years for delivery, which is the waiting
time for a custom Vanilla. I would also end up with a lighter,
stiffer and better tuned frame. You just can't customize steel in the
same way as you can CF or even hydroformed aluminum.

Hmm. I think that last sentence is precisely backwards.

What you can do with CF or hydroformed aluminum is mass produce bikes
with specially shaped tubes. But to me, "custom" means built to fit
the exact desires of the individual customer. That's where steel
excels, at least within its range of capabilities. A smart guy with
an oxyacetylene set and some simple tools can build a steel bike to
fit almost any person and almost any intended application.

IOW, if you want a special bike to fit a 4'9" woman and let her carry
100 pounds of ceramic vases over the front wheel, it's going to have
to be steel. If you have 1000 women that size who want the same exact
thing, you can begin negotiating with a Chinese company to have them
done in hydroformed aluminum - but even 1000 will be high priced, due
to tooling costs.


I worked for a manufacturer of CFRP orthoses. Every single piece out
the door *absolutely* and finely custom fitted to order.

snip

On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 21:15:54 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Mar 16, 3:59*pm, Jay Beattie wrote:

So what explains the cost of custom steel frames? *A custom steel
frame goes for $2-3K, and more than that for some builders -- e.g.
Vanilla here in PDX. *Vanilla's generic Speedvagen goes for $3-4K.
Custom Vanilla goes for $4-5K, frame and fork. *I was quoted well
under $3K for a close-out 2012 Roubaix with all Ultegra. That's a
whole bike with nice components. I think that is a relative bargain --
and if it breaks, I get a new one . . . for life, and not for a year.
And I don't have to wait five years for delivery, which is the waiting
time for a custom Vanilla. *I would also end up with a lighter,
stiffer and better tuned frame. *You just can't customize steel in the
same way as you can CF or even hydroformed aluminum.

Hmm. I think that last sentence is precisely backwards.

What you can do with CF or hydroformed aluminum is mass produce bikes
with specially shaped tubes. But to me, "custom" means built to fit
the exact desires of the individual customer. That's where steel
excels, at least within its range of capabilities. A smart guy with
an oxyacetylene set and some simple tools can build a steel bike to
fit almost any person and almost any intended application.

IOW, if you want a special bike to fit a 4'9" woman and let her carry
100 pounds of ceramic vases over the front wheel, it's going to have
to be steel. If you have 1000 women that size who want the same exact
thing, you can begin negotiating with a Chinese company to have them
done in hydroformed aluminum - but even 1000 will be high priced, due
to tooling costs.

It's true that fine custom steel frames are currently expensive. I
don't think custom steel has to be as expensive as it is, though. I
think the prices are driven partly by the trendiness (in certain
quarters) and by the tendency to make these bikes as objets d'art. By
keeping fancy lugwork to a minimum (or using MIG welding) and doing
only as much finishing as needed for good appearance at ten feet, I
think a good steel frame could be sold for much less than $1000. Even
with American labor.

It's true it wouldn't be as light and stiff as a modern aluminum or CF
bike. But it could be less fragile, and be actually "custom" as well,
for those with unusual needs.

- Frank Krygowski

The cost of a Columbus SL set of tubes, lugs, fork crown, etc
necessary to built a light steel frame, with shipping from England to
Thailand is 267.43 British Pounds.

Consumables Silver and bronze rod, acetylene and oxygen perhaps 50
dollars and labor for 3 - 5 days.

Powder coating is US$ 33.00 or US$ 40.00 with clear coating.

This does not include depreciation costs for shop equipment, if any.

--
Cheers,

John B.

On Mar 17, 2:59*am, Dan O wrote:
On Mar 16, 9:15 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:









On Mar 16, 3:59 pm, Jay Beattie wrote:

So what explains the cost of custom steel frames? *A custom steel
frame goes for $2-3K, and more than that for some builders -- e.g.
Vanilla here in PDX. *Vanilla's generic Speedvagen goes for $3-4K.
Custom Vanilla goes for $4-5K, frame and fork. *I was quoted well
under $3K for a close-out 2012 Roubaix with all Ultegra. That's a
whole bike with nice components. I think that is a relative bargain --
and if it breaks, I get a new one . . . for life, and not for a year.
And I don't have to wait five years for delivery, which is the waiting
time for a custom Vanilla. *I would also end up with a lighter,
stiffer and better tuned frame. *You just can't customize steel in the
same way as you can CF or even hydroformed aluminum.

Hmm. *I think that last sentence is precisely backwards.

What you can do with CF or hydroformed aluminum is mass produce bikes
with specially shaped tubes. *But to me, "custom" means built to fit
the exact desires of the individual customer. That's where steel
excels, at least within its range of capabilities. *A smart guy with
an oxyacetylene set and some simple tools can build a steel bike to
fit almost any person and almost any intended application.

IOW, if you want a special bike to fit a 4'9" woman and let her carry
100 pounds of ceramic vases over the front wheel, it's going to have
to be steel. *If you have 1000 women that size who want the same exact
thing, you can begin negotiating with a Chinese company to have them
done in hydroformed aluminum - but even 1000 will be high priced, due
to tooling costs.

I worked for a manufacturer of CFRP orthoses. *Every single piece out
the door *absolutely* and finely custom fitted to order.

Of course that's possible. It would also have been possible to make
them out of hydroformed (or otherwise formed) aluminum. But at what
cost per unit?

What did those orthoses cost, and how did their shapes' complexity and
precision compare with that of a typical bike frame? My bet is the
shapes were much simpler, and still very expensive.

- Frank Krygowski