Cannondale Synapse Alloy or Carbon--Need Your Advice

Trying to decide wether the extra cost of a carbon frame. Cannondale
Synapse has identical from sizes in alloy (presumably aluminium) and
carbon. The price difference is substantial. The dealer says that the
ride is better and more efficient with the carbon frame but am not
convinced that this is true given the fact that the alloy Synapse has
a carbon fork and seatpost.

For info--I'm 65 and ride 40-50 miles most weekends on city streets
and rails to trails. No racing.

I would appreciate comments from anyone. Thanks. StanW

On Sep 7, 2:44 pm, StanW wrote:
Trying to decide wether the extra cost of a carbon frame. Cannondale
Synapse has identical from sizes in alloy (presumably aluminium) and
carbon. The price difference is substantial. The dealer says that the
ride is better and more efficient with the carbon frame but am not
convinced that this is true given the fact that the alloy Synapse has
a carbon fork and seatpost.

Like the Synapse?, get it. Dealer is milking a sale. I see way too
many weekend warriors with their requisite chub on the local paths
riding $3K bikes the shop upsold them. Mind, no beans against you if
you simply like expensive kit, it's at least cheaper than turning a
Harley into a lampshade.

In article om,
StanW wrote:

Trying to decide wether the extra cost of a carbon frame. Cannondale
Synapse has identical from sizes in alloy (presumably aluminium) and
carbon. The price difference is substantial. The dealer says that the
ride is better and more efficient with the carbon frame but am not
convinced that this is true given the fact that the alloy Synapse has
a carbon fork and seatpost.

For info--I'm 65 and ride 40-50 miles most weekends on city streets
and rails to trails. No racing.

Buy the aluminum one. I would anticipate no discernible difference in
comfort, but if the ride ends up being too harsh, you can spend the
price difference on 25 or 28 mm tires.

Cannondale makes great bikes, but the performance advantage from the
slightly lighter carbon bike would be unnoticeable for anyone outside of
a very competitive racer on a course with lots of climbing. If the price
difference is "substantial," then I would go for the aluminum bike every
time. I'm sure you can figure out what to do with the money you save (my
choice would be to buy a nice dinner out for the missus and me, and a
nice bottle of expensive booze I would never normally purchase), but be
confident that you'll never miss the carbon frame.

I would appreciate comments from anyone. Thanks.

I'm almost certain this is not true. You're welcome.

--
Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

StanW wrote:
Trying to decide wether the extra cost of a carbon frame. Cannondale
Synapse has identical from sizes in alloy (presumably aluminium) and
carbon. The price difference is substantial. The dealer says that the
ride is better and more efficient with the carbon frame but am not
convinced that this is true given the fact that the alloy Synapse has
a carbon fork and seatpost.

I'm pretty sure the seatpost on a Synapse Alloy is carbon-wrapped -
I think there's metal underneath it, but I've never looked at mine.

Will the dealer let you test ride both bikes? I'm quite happy with
the ride on my '07 Synapse 1 (Alloy), but it's the first road bike
I've had in 20 years. The one thing I did was replace the stock
C'dale Omega brakes with Shimano 105s, which improved stopping
considerably, though it might have been enough to just swap
the stock brake pads for Ultegra pads.

Dana

The CF Synapse I've seen seem to be made of lower quality CF similiar
to TREK's. No CF weave to be seen. No, problems riding it, but seems a
little more fragile than say an Italian or custom made CF frames. I'm
guessing here, but I'd say that this level of CF bicycle frame is sold
at the wholesale level for about 150 bucks per. Another 50 bucks for
a no-name CF fork plus all Ultegra or Veloce components and the LBS
will be a happy camper to sell it to you for $999.

StanW wrote:
Trying to decide wether the extra cost of a carbon frame. Cannondale
Synapse has identical from sizes in alloy (presumably aluminium) and
carbon. The price difference is substantial. The dealer says that the
ride is better and more efficient with the carbon frame but am not
convinced that this is true given the fact that the alloy Synapse has
a carbon fork and seatpost.

For info--I'm 65 and ride 40-50 miles most weekends on city streets
and rails to trails. No racing.

I would appreciate comments from anyone. Thanks. StanW




What is a "reasonable" differential price between CF and aluminum for
otherwise somewhat similar frames? I keep two bikes running most of the
time. One is CF and the other is aluminum and they have the same
drivetrain and brakes. Both have carbon forks. To be honest, I
regularly ride them both and I cannot tell a heck of a lot of difference
between the two, day in and day out. The difference in the price of
these two (bought several years apart) was $500 and change. It is fun
owning a CF framed bike. In my case though, even considering that part
of the price difference is due to inflation, I would not say there is
$500 worth of difference between the two.

On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 04:58:21 GMT, Ryan Cousineau
wrote:

In article om,
StanW wrote:

Trying to decide wether the extra cost of a carbon frame. Cannondale
Synapse has identical from sizes in alloy (presumably aluminium) and
carbon. The price difference is substantial. The dealer says that the
ride is better and more efficient with the carbon frame but am not
convinced that this is true given the fact that the alloy Synapse has
a carbon fork and seatpost.

For info--I'm 65 and ride 40-50 miles most weekends on city streets
and rails to trails. No racing.

Buy the aluminum one. I would anticipate no discernible difference in
comfort, but if the ride ends up being too harsh, you can spend the
price difference on 25 or 28 mm tires.

Cannondale makes great bikes, but the performance advantage from the
slightly lighter carbon bike would be unnoticeable for anyone outside of
a very competitive racer on a course with lots of climbing. If the price
difference is "substantial," then I would go for the aluminum bike every
time. I'm sure you can figure out what to do with the money you save (my
choice would be to buy a nice dinner out for the missus and me, and a
nice bottle of expensive booze I would never normally purchase), but be
confident that you'll never miss the carbon frame.

I would appreciate comments from anyone. Thanks.

I'm almost certain this is not true. You're welcome.

I recently got an all carbon and for me it's worth it. My area is
hilly to very hilly, and it really makes a big difference. My Al bike
(Trek 1000) feels slightly slushy in contrast (some of that might be
give in the chain and component wear, but I just changed out the rear
cogs about 18 months ago).

I'm very glad I got the carbon. It was a present for losing 40+lbs in
the last 8 months. Yep, finally riding in the non-Clydesdale division
at 190-195 on the Saturday morning group rides.

I'd suggest you test ride both.

In article . com,
Kenny wrote:

The CF Synapse I've seen seem to be made of lower quality CF similiar
to TREK's. No CF weave to be seen. No, problems riding it, but seems a

The surface layer of bidirectional woven carbon fibre seen on many
bicycles is often primarily cosmetic. Most designs exploit
unidirectional fiber matting extensively.

little more fragile than say an Italian or custom made CF frames. I'm
guessing here, but I'd say that this level of CF bicycle frame is sold
at the wholesale level for about 150 bucks per. Another 50 bucks for
a no-name CF fork plus all Ultegra or Veloce components and the LBS
will be a happy camper to sell it to you for $999.

Interesting, if true.

--
Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos