[jhamlin38]

So I'm talking about the R3 frame asking his opinion on the comfort of the skinny lil stays. He actually told me that they don't make a difference, and that people actually cut them off onder the brake to save weight. My BS meater actually broke, and I got a headache.
Does anyone have a similar outlandish tale from a bikeshop salesguy?
I thought this is one of the finest stores I've set foot in. Too bad. Just thought I'd share.

 

[ZoSoSwiM]

You don't cut your seat stays off? Phew.. and you call yourself a cyclist.

 

[gizzard]

So I'm talking about the R3 frame asking his opinion on the comfort of the skinny lil stays. He actually told me that they don't make a difference, and that people actually cut them off onder the brake to save weight. My BS meater actually broke, and I got a headache.
Does anyone have a similar outlandish tale from a bikeshop salesguy?
I thought this is one of the finest stores I've set foot in. Too bad. Just thought I'd share.

Is this the gist of what he said: frame manufacturers reduce the size (diameter) of seat stays below the brake bridge to save weight? Is that about it?

 

[jupiterrn]

Kinda interesting I found this posted on weight weenies. I don't know of anybody who has done it but it may actually be plausible if this posting is correct.

http://weightweenies.starbike.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=82542

 

[Gimme Shoulder]

I think this was discussed either in the Cervelo section of RBR or on Cervelo's forum. YOU OTHER CERVELO GUYS, PLEASE CHECK ME ON THIS, AND CHIME IN IF I HAVE IT WRONG.

I think this stems from either urban legend or Cervelo marketing. The jist of it is that the frame (bottom bracket housing and chain stays) is designed such that the seat stays don't see that much load. (But that is not to say there is zero load). Supposedly, the frame will survive, and can be ridden, even without the seat stays. But, of course, Cervelo in no way recommends doing this on purpose.

I personally think it's a swell idea to take a $2800 frame and mutilate it. Maybe the LBS guy would like to give that a try with his R3 and let us know how it goes. By the way if one was to do something this brilliant, why worry about the brake. Heck, you only need one. Just cut the seat stay at the seat tube and save another half pound.

 

[gizzard]

Okay I think I've got it straight now. It's just that it's such a disingenuous/unlikely topic in the first place that I was battling to seriously contemplate doing such a thing. Clearly no-one is going to take a hacksaw to their R3 seat stays which means it's a purely theoretical discussion and in my opinion a waste of time.

 

[Mad_Hun]

I need to know where you heard this . . . I'm never going there.

 

[phoehn9111]

Gimme my hacksaw, I'm goin to town!

 

[Magsdad]

Do the down tube. It saves more weight.

 

[stevesbike]

would make braking interesting...

 

[Rob P]

When the frame first came out, there was talk within the industry about how the R3's chain stays were strong enough to support the rider without the seat stays. I believe this to be fact as it came from many creditable sources and it was considered for this reason to be a very innovative design.

I believe the point was, not to be concerned about how thin the seat stays were as the frame was compensated for in very strong chain stays.

That said, I WOULD NOT recommend modifying your frame in anyway.

 

[Mel Erickson]

Do the down tube. It saves more weight.

Been there. Done that.

 

[phoehn9111]

Thank you, Mr. Obvious!

 

[CleavesF]

Did you guys know carbon explodes to make itself lighter?

 

[azoomm]

Been there. Done that.

Hey... I had the same fork back in the day! Specialized/Rock Shox Judy! I should have kept it for posterity.

 

[ericm979]

I am pretty sure that when the R3 came out Gerard Vroomen posted somewhere, possibly slowtwitch, that the seatstays are there mostly because of UCI regs and the chainstays are strong enough that they'd support the bike if the seatstays were cut off. He wasn't suggesting doing it.

If you look on Cevelo's web site at their historical section there's at least one bike with no seatstays, so they know how to make that work.

The RS's curved seatstays sure don't look like they can support much vertical force.

However even with all that I'm not about to try cutting my R3's seatstays off!

 

[Sojourneyman]

I think this was discussed either in the Cervelo section of RBR or on Cervelo's forum. YOU OTHER CERVELO GUYS, PLEASE CHECK ME ON THIS, AND CHIME IN IF I HAVE IT WRONG.

I think this stems from either urban legend or Cervelo marketing. The jist of it is that the frame (bottom bracket housing and chain stays) is designed such that the seat stays don't see that much load. (But that is not to say there is zero load). Supposedly, the frame will survive, and can be ridden, even without the seat stays. But, of course, Cervelo in no way recommends doing this on purpose.

I personally think it's a swell idea to take a $2800 frame and mutilate it. Maybe the LBS guy would like to give that a try with his R3 and let us know how it goes. By the way if one was to do something this brilliant, why worry about the brake. Heck, you only need one. Just cut the seat stay at the seat tube and save another half pound.

quick, email mythbusters!

 

[Biker Bear]

When it comes to cycling you have to do the research. Unfortunately, most LBS sales guys just don't have the knowledge about the products that they sell. But that's not unique to cycling. Whatever product you may buy (cars, homes, computers), these days you have to research the product yourself before you make the purchase. It's the American way. Service is no longer reliable or sought after. Things have changed. Just count your blessings that they didn't connect you to someone in India on the telephone to answer your question about the R3.

 

[persondude27]

Heh. I was in a bad wreck and snapped the seatstay on my 2008 R3, but didn't realize it. I got back up, finished the race in 9th overall. I'm not a big guy (5'11", 142 lb) but I didn't notice it until the wrench I asked to fix the shifting pointed it out to me.

It supported a hard, 39 mph sprint and some sharp corning on a snapped seatstay, so it wouldn't be a stretch of imagination.

 

[RC28]

Yeah, cutting up a frame to prove the point would be a bad idea. Having said that, there have been some bikes made and even sold in the past (when the UCI regs were not so strict as to actually require seatstays) that were made without them. The Lotus road frame that Chris Boardman and Lance Armstrong used in the mid-90s, the original Pinarello Espada used by Indurain, the Pinarellos used by Ullrich and Riis (yeah, the one from the infamous bike toss) were made without them. Although one could argue that , in the case of the Pinarellos, the top part of the split chainstay worked as a seatstay, the Lotus plainly did not use seatstays at all.