carbon monocoque frames

On Jun 5, 12:31*am, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Jun 3, 6:02*pm, Chalo wrote:



dustoyevsky wrote:

Chalo wrote:

Paying a lot of money and accepting greatly increased fragility to
save maybe 0.5% from your total rolling weight seems pretty
questionable to me. *Before you do that, make sure you're using low-
loss tires and low enough gears that you can stay in your high-power
RPM range when you climb. *And if you want to shave weight to the
point that reliability becomes an issue, start with the parts of your
bike that are (usually) less expensive to replace: rims, spokes,
pedals, derailleurs, brakes.

Geeze, I picked up someone's CF-framed bike who had parked against me
at a store stop the other day so I could sneak away early and climb
the Tower Hill at my own speed (worked, too). Me = Litespeed Catalyst,
Campy CRec, Rec, Chorus, Centaur running gear, Veloce cassette (IOW,
the only "heavy, cheap" thing on the bike) (whoops, it has a Turbo
saddle on it after I gave up on the Arione).
Him = I don't know, but mine felt like an anchor compared. Lots more
than "0.5%" and it's not just the 150g or so of saddle weight.

My point is that the difference between a "heavy" Ti or aluminum frame
and a "light" carbon-plastic one is approximately a pound-- out of an
all-up weight that is usually more than two hundred pounds. *That's
half a percent, all else equal. *And it comes at a noteworthy cost in
dollars, reliability, and longevity.

Half a percent difference in gross weight will only make close to half
a percent difference in elapsed time on a climb so severe that it must
be taken at speeds below those at which aerodynamic forces have a
significant effect. *You get that energy back again on the way down
(though it doesn't have as much effect on your speed going down).

The gross weight thing doesn't work because the body pounds are doing
work unlike the bike pounds that are luggage. *A heavy bicycle just
adds weight. *It's an anchor, and at some point, the rider will pay
for the additional weight. *If the additional weight means increased
reliability or significantly reduced cost, then that is a worthy trade
off. But saying that taking a pound off a bike makes no difference is
not true.-- Jay Beattie.

Plenty of people carry pounds on their body that do no work, and may
in fact reduce the efficiency of the whole body machine simply because
the body has to work to keep those extra bits alive!

JS.

On Fri, 4 Jun 2010 07:31:34 -0700 (PDT), Jay Beattie
wrote:

On Jun 3, 6:02*pm, Chalo wrote:
dustoyevsky wrote:

Chalo wrote:

Paying a lot of money and accepting greatly increased fragility to
save maybe 0.5% from your total rolling weight seems pretty
questionable to me. *Before you do that, make sure you're using low-
loss tires and low enough gears that you can stay in your high-power
RPM range when you climb. *And if you want to shave weight to the
point that reliability becomes an issue, start with the parts of your
bike that are (usually) less expensive to replace: rims, spokes,
pedals, derailleurs, brakes.

Geeze, I picked up someone's CF-framed bike who had parked against me
at a store stop the other day so I could sneak away early and climb
the Tower Hill at my own speed (worked, too). Me = Litespeed Catalyst,
Campy CRec, Rec, Chorus, Centaur running gear, Veloce cassette (IOW,
the only "heavy, cheap" thing on the bike) (whoops, it has a Turbo
saddle on it after I gave up on the Arione).
Him = I don't know, but mine felt like an anchor compared. Lots more
than "0.5%" and it's not just the 150g or so of saddle weight.

My point is that the difference between a "heavy" Ti or aluminum frame
and a "light" carbon-plastic one is approximately a pound-- out of an
all-up weight that is usually more than two hundred pounds. *That's
half a percent, all else equal. *And it comes at a noteworthy cost in
dollars, reliability, and longevity.

Half a percent difference in gross weight will only make close to half
a percent difference in elapsed time on a climb so severe that it must
be taken at speeds below those at which aerodynamic forces have a
significant effect. *You get that energy back again on the way down
(though it doesn't have as much effect on your speed going down).

The gross weight thing doesn't work because the body pounds are doing
work unlike the bike pounds that are luggage. A heavy bicycle just
adds weight. It's an anchor, and at some point, the rider will pay
for the additional weight. If the additional weight means increased
reliability or significantly reduced cost, then that is a worthy trade
off. But saying that taking a pound off a bike makes no difference is
not true.-- Jay Beattie.

Dear Jay,

Here's a calculator that lets you take pounds off bikes or bodies and
see what the differences up a grade are for the same watts:
http://bikecalculator.com/veloUS.html

Try this:
300 watts
140.0 lb rider
16.5 lb bike
tubulars
drops
6% grade
4.229 miles

Then take one pound off the bike.

I get 20.00 versus 19.91 minutes, a difference of 0.09 minutes, or 5.4
seconds, 0.45% faster.

It's the same effect as putting out an extra 1.53 watts on the heavier
bike, 0.49% more power.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

oh Carl incroyable ! you caved in to the PLOT

now we're all bound into buying one
every 3 years....
I gotta go tell my pet Oxen.

On Jun 3, 12:08*pm, Lou Holtman wrote:
Op 3-6-2010 7:20, yirgster schreef:

When I bought my sub 1 kg CF frame I took a 3-5 year
life expectancy into account and this isn't even my main bike. Are you
prepared to do the same? I guess not.

A *light cf bike will only last 3-5 years?

A CF frame of 1000 gr is on the edge. It is not designed for durability
it is for racing.
I doubt that a 1000 gr CF frame can survive 10 years of daily use with
all the little accidents. Everthing is flimsy on such a frame; dropouts,
derailleur hanger, BB shell etc. My BB shell came loose after 2 years.
Fortunately it could be repaired.

Lou

I disagree. My n of 1 story is as follows: I purchased a USED Fuji
Professional (1.1 kg) and rode it for three years, at around 210 lbs,
for around 4k miles per. Then I sold it to my father, who has ridden
it for the past two, without incident.

Is he cycling on borrowed time? is his bottom bracket shell about to
disintegrate?

What brand frame was yours? How much do you weigh?

My 1kg frames (give or take 0.1kg), of which I have had three, have
all been sturdy as hell. You must be pumping kilowatts into those
frames cuz I have never had the problems you describe.

D'ohBoy

On Jun 4, 7:42*pm, "D'ohBoy" wrote:
On Jun 3, 12:08*pm, Lou Holtman wrote:





Op 3-6-2010 7:20, yirgster schreef:

When I bought my sub 1 kg CF frame I took a 3-5 year
life expectancy into account and this isn't even my main bike. Are you
prepared to do the same? I guess not.

A *light cf bike will only last 3-5 years?

A CF frame of 1000 gr is on the edge. It is not designed for durability
it is for racing.
I doubt that a 1000 gr CF frame can survive 10 years of daily use with
all the little accidents. Everthing is flimsy on such a frame; dropouts,
derailleur hanger, BB shell etc. My BB shell came loose after 2 years.
Fortunately it could be repaired.

Lou

I disagree. My n of 1 story is as follows: *I purchased a USED Fuji
Professional (1.1 kg) and rode it for three years, at around 210 lbs,
for around 4k miles per. *Then I sold it to my father, who has ridden
it for the past two, without incident.

Is he cycling on borrowed time? *is his bottom bracket shell about to
disintegrate?

What brand frame was yours? * How much do you weigh?

My 1kg frames (give or take 0.1kg), of which I have had three, have
all been sturdy as hell. *You must be pumping kilowatts into those
frames cuz I have never had the problems you describe.

D'ohBoy- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

THAT IS THE PROBLEM ! quality control. Itsnot like do we have quality
japanese steel tubing here or izzit expot from China or
India....neither izgonna throw you down on the road ....

labor used in manufacturing with toxic resins and epoxies are not the
most careful craftsmen...

well then what we need is a heavy Carbon Mono ! the soliutiojn to
everything

Op 5-6-2010 4:42, D'ohBoy schreef:
On Jun 3, 12:08 pm, Lou wrote:
Op 3-6-2010 7:20, yirgster schreef:

When I bought my sub 1 kg CF frame I took a 3-5 year
life expectancy into account and this isn't even my main bike. Are you
prepared to do the same? I guess not.

A light cf bike will only last 3-5 years?

A CF frame of 1000 gr is on the edge. It is not designed for durability
it is for racing.
I doubt that a 1000 gr CF frame can survive 10 years of daily use with
all the little accidents. Everthing is flimsy on such a frame; dropouts,
derailleur hanger, BB shell etc. My BB shell came loose after 2 years.
Fortunately it could be repaired.

Lou

I disagree. My n of 1 story is as follows: I purchased a USED Fuji
Professional (1.1 kg) and rode it for three years, at around 210 lbs,
for around 4k miles per. Then I sold it to my father, who has ridden
it for the past two, without incident.

Is he cycling on borrowed time? is his bottom bracket shell about to
disintegrate?


I don't know. 1100 gr compared to sub 1000 gr can make a huge difference
with CF. All I know is that manufacturers only give a 3 years warrenty
on (sub) 1000 gr frames, tell you to be very careful with it and Pro
riders throw their frames away after one season. There are manufacturers
that say explicitly to replace the frame after 3 years. Go figure and
draw your own conclusion.


What brand frame was yours? How much do you weigh?

My frame is a Scott CR1 and weighs 975 gr, I weigh 73-75 kg. Scott says
in their instruction to torque the BB to 35 Nm max and use loctite
instead of the 70 Nm Campy recommend. I don't loctite a BB and made a
compromise and torqued it to 50 Nm. I overdone it as it appear. After
the frame wars repaired I put on a Campy UT crankset. Their cups only
need 35 Nm.
The cablestops and front hanger are flimsy and rivited with Al rivets.
Not very durable sweatwise. Pull a RD into the spokes? The frame is
trashed. Drop the chain a couple of times? I won't be riding that frame
with confidence. Don't clamp the frame in your workstand, don't clamp
the frame when on your bikerack. Etc. etc.


My 1kg frames (give or take 0.1kg), of which I have had three, have
all been sturdy as hell. You must be pumping kilowatts into those
frames cuz I have never had the problems you describe.

Besides the BB shell I also had no issues but I'm very careful with that
bike. All I'm saying is that if money is tight and you want a durable
frame in all day use maybe a sub 1000 gr CF is not a good idea. I also
have a highend AL frame. Rides as good as the Scott and is only 275 gr
heavier and costs less then 1/3 of the CF. If I have to trash that one
it won't hurt so much.
YMMV.

Lou

On Jun 4, 3:02*pm, wrote:
On Fri, 4 Jun 2010 07:31:34 -0700 (PDT), Jay Beattie



wrote:
On Jun 3, 6:02*pm, Chalo wrote:
dustoyevsky wrote:

Chalo wrote:

Paying a lot of money and accepting greatly increased fragility to
save maybe 0.5% from your total rolling weight seems pretty
questionable to me. *Before you do that, make sure you're using low-
loss tires and low enough gears that you can stay in your high-power
RPM range when you climb. *And if you want to shave weight to the
point that reliability becomes an issue, start with the parts of your
bike that are (usually) less expensive to replace: rims, spokes,
pedals, derailleurs, brakes.

Geeze, I picked up someone's CF-framed bike who had parked against me
at a store stop the other day so I could sneak away early and climb
the Tower Hill at my own speed (worked, too). Me = Litespeed Catalyst,
Campy CRec, Rec, Chorus, Centaur running gear, Veloce cassette (IOW,
the only "heavy, cheap" thing on the bike) (whoops, it has a Turbo
saddle on it after I gave up on the Arione).
Him = I don't know, but mine felt like an anchor compared. Lots more
than "0.5%" and it's not just the 150g or so of saddle weight.

My point is that the difference between a "heavy" Ti or aluminum frame
and a "light" carbon-plastic one is approximately a pound-- out of an
all-up weight that is usually more than two hundred pounds. *That's
half a percent, all else equal. *And it comes at a noteworthy cost in
dollars, reliability, and longevity.

Half a percent difference in gross weight will only make close to half
a percent difference in elapsed time on a climb so severe that it must
be taken at speeds below those at which aerodynamic forces have a
significant effect. *You get that energy back again on the way down
(though it doesn't have as much effect on your speed going down).

The gross weight thing doesn't work because the body pounds are doing
work unlike the bike pounds that are luggage. *A heavy bicycle just
adds weight. *It's an anchor, and at some point, the rider will pay
for the additional weight. *If the additional weight means increased
reliability or significantly reduced cost, then that is a worthy trade
off. But saying that taking a pound off a bike makes no difference is
not true.-- Jay Beattie.

Dear Jay,

Here's a calculator that lets you take pounds off bikes or bodies and
see what the differences up a grade are for the same watts:
*http://bikecalculator.com/veloUS.html

Try this:
* 300 watts
* 140.0 lb rider
* 16.5 lb bike
* tubulars
* drops
* 6% grade
* 4.229 miles

Then take one pound off the bike.

I get 20.00 versus 19.91 minutes, a difference of 0.09 minutes, or 5.4
seconds, 0.45% faster.

It's the same effect as putting out an extra 1.53 watts on the heavier
bike, 0.49% more power.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

The problem for me with this is that it doesn't, I believe, represent
my situation (but the calculator is neat! thanks for the link!) which
is how the additional weight will affect me after riding for several
hours. I may later today do 50 miles with 4700 ft of climbing, the
majority of which is in the last 15 miles or so. 5 hours or so total.
(Remember, I'm in medicare city!)

So, it's not just one hill. It's the whole ride and the cumulative
effect of overcoming gravity. It seems to me that that extra pound or
half pound is going to weigh more and more [god, how pathetic!] as the
ride goes on.

(Btw, bought my current Habanero Ti bike eight years ago from Senor
Andrew Muzzi who posts here.)

Op 5-6-2010 13:51, yirgster schreef:
On Jun 4, 3:02 pm, wrote:
On Fri, 4 Jun 2010 07:31:34 -0700 (PDT), Jay Beattie



wrote:
On Jun 3, 6:02 pm, wrote:
dustoyevsky wrote:

Chalo wrote:

Paying a lot of money and accepting greatly increased fragility to
save maybe 0.5% from your total rolling weight seems pretty
questionable to me. Before you do that, make sure you're using low-
loss tires and low enough gears that you can stay in your high-power
RPM range when you climb. And if you want to shave weight to the
point that reliability becomes an issue, start with the parts of your
bike that are (usually) less expensive to replace: rims, spokes,
pedals, derailleurs, brakes.

Geeze, I picked up someone's CF-framed bike who had parked against me
at a store stop the other day so I could sneak away early and climb
the Tower Hill at my own speed (worked, too). Me = Litespeed Catalyst,
Campy CRec, Rec, Chorus, Centaur running gear, Veloce cassette (IOW,
the only "heavy, cheap" thing on the bike) (whoops, it has a Turbo
saddle on it after I gave up on the Arione).
Him = I don't know, but mine felt like an anchor compared. Lots more
than "0.5%" and it's not just the 150g or so of saddle weight.

My point is that the difference between a "heavy" Ti or aluminum frame
and a "light" carbon-plastic one is approximately a pound-- out of an
all-up weight that is usually more than two hundred pounds. That's
half a percent, all else equal. And it comes at a noteworthy cost in
dollars, reliability, and longevity.

Half a percent difference in gross weight will only make close to half
a percent difference in elapsed time on a climb so severe that it must
be taken at speeds below those at which aerodynamic forces have a
significant effect. You get that energy back again on the way down
(though it doesn't have as much effect on your speed going down).

The gross weight thing doesn't work because the body pounds are doing
work unlike the bike pounds that are luggage. A heavy bicycle just
adds weight. It's an anchor, and at some point, the rider will pay
for the additional weight. If the additional weight means increased
reliability or significantly reduced cost, then that is a worthy trade
off. But saying that taking a pound off a bike makes no difference is
not true.-- Jay Beattie.

Dear Jay,

Here's a calculator that lets you take pounds off bikes or bodies and
see what the differences up a grade are for the same watts:
http://bikecalculator.com/veloUS.html

Try this:
300 watts
140.0 lb rider
16.5 lb bike
tubulars
drops
6% grade
4.229 miles

Then take one pound off the bike.

I get 20.00 versus 19.91 minutes, a difference of 0.09 minutes, or 5.4
seconds, 0.45% faster.

It's the same effect as putting out an extra 1.53 watts on the heavier
bike, 0.49% more power.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

The problem for me with this is that it doesn't, I believe, represent
my situation (but the calculator is neat! thanks for the link!) which
is how the additional weight will affect me after riding for several
hours. I may later today do 50 miles with 4700 ft of climbing, the
majority of which is in the last 15 miles or so. 5 hours or so total.
(Remember, I'm in medicare city!)

Yes it exactly represent your situation. You are fooling yourself. That
is OK but don't argue the facts. 5 hours for 50 miles and 4700 feet
elevation? There is something to improve, but 450 gr doesn't do the
trick ;-)

So, it's not just one hill. It's the whole ride and the cumulative
effect of overcoming gravity. It seems to me that that extra pound or
half pound is going to weigh more and more [god, how pathetic!] as the
ride goes on.

No it doesn't.
If you looking for a reason to buy a 1000 gr carbon frame you looking in
the wrong direction. If you just like the looks of it is a better reason.

Lou

I don't know. 1100 gr compared to sub 1000 gr can make a huge difference
with CF. All I know is that manufacturers only give a 3 years warrenty on
(sub) 1000 gr frames, tell you to be very careful with it and Pro riders
throw their frames away after one season. There are manufacturers that say
explicitly to replace the frame after 3 years. Go figure and draw your own
conclusion.

I think that Trek has a lifetime warranty (for the original owner) on its
carbon frames. But I don't know if any of them weigh less than 1000 g. Maybe
Mike J. can add something about this.

On Jun 4, 2:03*pm, James wrote:
On Jun 5, 12:31*am, Jay Beattie wrote:





On Jun 3, 6:02*pm, Chalo wrote:

dustoyevsky wrote:

Chalo wrote:

Paying a lot of money and accepting greatly increased fragility to
save maybe 0.5% from your total rolling weight seems pretty
questionable to me. *Before you do that, make sure you're using low-
loss tires and low enough gears that you can stay in your high-power
RPM range when you climb. *And if you want to shave weight to the
point that reliability becomes an issue, start with the parts of your
bike that are (usually) less expensive to replace: rims, spokes,
pedals, derailleurs, brakes.

Geeze, I picked up someone's CF-framed bike who had parked against me
at a store stop the other day so I could sneak away early and climb
the Tower Hill at my own speed (worked, too). Me = Litespeed Catalyst,
Campy CRec, Rec, Chorus, Centaur running gear, Veloce cassette (IOW,
the only "heavy, cheap" thing on the bike) (whoops, it has a Turbo
saddle on it after I gave up on the Arione).
Him = I don't know, but mine felt like an anchor compared. Lots more
than "0.5%" and it's not just the 150g or so of saddle weight.

My point is that the difference between a "heavy" Ti or aluminum frame
and a "light" carbon-plastic one is approximately a pound-- out of an
all-up weight that is usually more than two hundred pounds. *That's
half a percent, all else equal. *And it comes at a noteworthy cost in
dollars, reliability, and longevity.

Half a percent difference in gross weight will only make close to half
a percent difference in elapsed time on a climb so severe that it must
be taken at speeds below those at which aerodynamic forces have a
significant effect. *You get that energy back again on the way down
(though it doesn't have as much effect on your speed going down).

The gross weight thing doesn't work because the body pounds are doing
work unlike the bike pounds that are luggage. *A heavy bicycle just
adds weight. *It's an anchor, and at some point, the rider will pay
for the additional weight. *If the additional weight means increased
reliability or significantly reduced cost, then that is a worthy trade
off. But saying that taking a pound off a bike makes no difference is
not true.-- Jay Beattie.

Plenty of people carry pounds on their body that do no work, and may
in fact reduce the efficiency of the whole body machine simply because
the body has to work to keep those extra bits alive!

JS.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I've had racing weights of 187 to 210lbs -- and have been as heavy as
220lbs. My performance (even climbing) in the 187-197 range was
fairly consistent with similar times on long climbs with the usual
variation for seasonal fitness, illness, etc. If my theoretical self
at 187lbs had added ten pounds to my bike and then raced my
theoretical self at 197 up a hill, I would have gotten my ass kicked
by the big guy. I just don't think you can deal with body weight the
same as bike weight.

I switch between bikes (commuter and racer) that are maybe five
pounds in difference, and fast climbing is considerably more difficult
on the heavier bike -- even with identical width/PSI tires. A pound
does make a difference, although we can argue about how much. Even
with Carl's calculator, it makes 5 seconds difference over 4.2 miles
of 6 percent, which is a lot IMO -- at least in a race. Now, just
rolling along on the flats at 50% output -- or even climbing at a
loping pace -- weight does not make that much of a difference. I see
no reason for the slow moving set to buy uber-light frames and
equipment. -- Jay Beattie.