[bigriderblack]

I posted this request for opinions in the old forum but just wanted to see what kind of feedback I get back in this one. Is it just me or does anyone see a real significant value in the CF seat stays? I am more inclined to believe this marketing hype than a significant improvement in ride quality - especially for larger riders (6 ft 205).

Just looking for some opinions

 

[slide]

I just got a Trek 2200 so we'll see once I get some miles in on it. A guy I work with at the LBS has a aluminum frame with carbon seatstays and he swears it makes it a lot more comfortable, I'm not sure though. I'm not expecting it to make any real difference at all, but we will see.

 

[niteschaos]

I'm not convinced. It just looks like another joint and more weight added to the frame. I prefere my frames to be either all carbon or all aluminum. I like the way the CAAD5 and 7 deal with relaxing the rear triangle.

 

[MR_GRUMPY]

Carbon stays are great for the manufacturer, because they can get them pretty cheap from China, and they actually save them money. It costs less, and they can charge more for the frame. Sounds pretty good to me.

 

[benInMA]

I just sent my old trek 2200 aluminum frame in for warranty and they are replacing it with the new one with the carbon stays. So I'll be able to tell for sure. I'm not changing anything else but the frame and fork so that's a pretty good test. Mine was a 2000 with a carbon fork, maybe the new fork will change the feel too but I doubt the new fork is that different.

I believe most of the manufacturers are claiming lower weights with CF stays aren't they?

I'm doubtful about the ride quality but we will see.

I mostly worry about reduced lifetime of the frame due to the bonding. However I figure Trek has this kind of thing under control in a big way at this point, they have been doing CF since the stone ages compared to lots of companies.

Ben

 

[Kerry Irons]

CF stays not typically lighter

Cannondale, for one, has publicly stated that because of the additional material at the CF/Al interface, a CF stay bike is heavier than their Al bikes. It makes sense that having this joint could not be lighter than a single material, and Al and CF bikes are about the same weight.

 

[Tommasini]

On a scale of 1 to 10 it might add 1/2

I posted this request for opinions in the old forum but just wanted to see what kind of feedback I get back in this one. Is it just me or does anyone see a real significant value in the CF seat stays? I am more inclined to believe this marketing hype than a significant improvement in ride quality - especially for larger riders (6 ft 205).

Just looking for some opinions

I went from an all alu Tommasini to a full carbon rear (Columbus Muscle). Does it add some cush? Subjectively maybe a little but whole not a lot (same seat, wheels, etc). Matched with a black carbon fork does it look nice - definitely to me (yet beauty is in the eye of the beholder). Frame stiffness-wise I don't perceive any change (both frames were about 2 1/2 lbs) . So was it worth it - given the slight ride improvement plus aethestic value (my perception) I'd say yes - for others looking for best value I'd say probably not.

 

[plus_vite]

I am skeptical

I think you are wise to be a skeptic.

 

[divve]

There was some testing done in the German Tour mag, if I recall correctly the carbon stays did improve the ride....about the equivalent of 0.1psi less pressure in your tires. Additionally, the frames tend to be less lateral stiff due to the hinge joint you typically find at the rear drop-outs.

 

[terry b]

I've got a couple of bikes with carbon stays and one with a carbon rear. On the steel frames, they give me the impression that they might be a bit more stiff than a straight steel frame. But who really knows since I don't have two frames built of the same tubing with and without carbon.

One aluminum though, I do have two V107 frames with the same wheels, post, tiress and saddle. One has carbon stays, the other doesn't. Difference? absolutely none. They both feel exactly the same (to me.) The carbon stay bike looks cool in its own way, but so does the straight aluminum frame.

I wouldn't choose one with CF expecting a difference, I'd choose one because I liked the looks of the frame.

 

[bigriderblack]

Good stuff from all - I think that is exactly the point - CF Stays "look cool" and we all love the look of the "Beautiful Black Weave" (and there is nothing wrong with that!!), its part of what makes the sport so much fun. Just as long as we can get enough information to distinguish between gear functionality and gear envy.

Thanks for the opinions & the knowledge - Let's Ride !!

 

[slide]

Usually adding carbon stays does increase the weights slightly. The Trek 2300 frameset went from 2.75lbs to 2.9lbs with the addition of the carbon stays. Not a huge difference, but I don't see there being much benefit from going with the carbon to justify it either. It does look good though and it sells bikes.

 

[winmac]

There was some testing done in the German Tour mag, if I recall correctly the carbon stays did improve the ride....about the equivalent of 0.1psi less pressure in your tires. Additionally, the frames tend to be less lateral stiff due to the hinge joint you typically find at the rear drop-outs.

so you could just go with 25cm tyres on a well made aluminum frame (Caad 9) and have a lighter faster bike with more comfort.

or i have a better idea...just put a Cane Creek Thudbuster LT on your road bike...if that doesn't "improve the ride" then nothing will.:thumbsup:

 

[snosaw]

Ride indeed!!

 

[vertr]

Uhm. 2004 wants its thread back.

 

[cyclust]

A while back I had a 2000 Klein Quantum, and then switched to a 2001 Klein Q-carbon Pro, which was the same frame with the additin of carbon seat stays. It did make a big difference in ride quality, though the Quantum had stays that were straight as a arrow aluminum. Cannondale, as noted earlier, shapes their seat says to mute road shock and vibrations in their all aluminum bikes. So which is better? For me, if you can stay with the aluminum and still get a good ride quality by simply reshaping the material, then that is the best route to go, as it simplifies things and elimnates the extra joints in the frame. But both methods worked, and one did have the "bling" factor, which helps sell bikes.

 

[CleavesF]

If Carbon stays do NOTHING, then why does everyone wanna ride a carbon fork? Ride quality? Huh...

 

[cdhbrad]

"One aluminum though, I do have two V107 frames with the same wheels, post, tiress and saddle. One has carbon stays, the other doesn't. Difference? absolutely none. They both feel exactly the same (to me.) The carbon stay bike looks cool in its own way, but so does the straight aluminum frame."

Same here, the frame with carbon rear is a Fondriest Carb Level Plus and the all U-107 a Viner Pro Team built virtually the same as the Fondriest and I can't tell any real difference in the ride, etc. I like them both. The Viner is actually a litle lighter.

 

[Mr. Versatile]

Carbon stays are just cosmetic.