Road Bike, Cycling Forums banner

41 - 56 of 56 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,859 Posts
WheresWaldo said:
Why does this sentence apply to CC and not to Litespeed also. As to why Litespeed built the Ghisallo as a compact rather than as a traditional frame design, two words, MARKET DEMAND! Please don't think us so nieve that we should believe that Litespeed in it's benevolent corporate culture only did this to save weight.
Well, I think both are true. Litespeed wanted to make the lightest possible frame (to meet market demand), and a compact frame can be lighter than a traditional one, even if some of the weight is put back on the complete bike due to the longer seat post. But Litespeed advertised the Ghisallo as the lightest frame (not the lightest bike), so the compact design met their requirements. (Of course, the Ghisallo can indeed be made into a very light bike as well.)

In a similar vein, the Ghisallo was designed with a traditional head tube, even when other high-end Litespeeds had head tubes designed for integrated headsets, simply because a traditional head tube is lighter (at least in titanium). Litespeed apparantly felt that the market demand for a light frame was greater than the demand for the latest fad in headsets.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
79 Posts
As for the Kuota, Scattante and EXO 303 being the same -- nonsense. They may be made in the same factory, along with the Orbea, Scott, Storck and others, but that is where the similarities end. Carbon construction is about lay-up and grades of material used in the lay-up, there is no similarity between a Scattante and a real high-end carbon frame. Do not be fooled - there are more differences between carbon frames made in the same factory then Columbus tubes welded by Earnesto and the kid down the street. Those tubes are the same for both, the only difference is who does the welding.[/QUOTE]



I think you may be a slight off the mark on that statement.
I would argue that Martec manufactures frames to a designed spec,
provided by the various bike companies who outsource from them.

Martec's layup, construction autoclave, etc processes/methodology would be
virtually the same for every frame, if not they would have to have untold number
of templates and build methods. Which would take much more time to produce.

There are probably 5 to 6 templates at best. If there weren't
the cost would be significantly higher and hence the consumer
cost would reflect that. There are a few $1500 to $2000 complete carbon rigs
out there on the market today, thanks in part to lower production costs.
(which is a lengthy subject all by itself anyway...JIT etc...etc..)

I think another major reason for being able to purchase such high
end composite frames at low prices is due to the quantity discount
and single point manufacturer - Martec in this case.

Now, as far as material content and composite grade, then I could agree.
Some bikes having more carbon fiber, denser fiber, more strands, etc...
But the processes would likely be the same, Martec is not a huge company.

They have a total of 75 employees, and are actually an offshoot of parent
company Marshal Ind. To have seperate templates and construction methods
for each different brand. That would not be cost efficient and would be very time consuming for production.
I think the difference between the Scattente or Motobecane or ______ and
a "Very high end frame" are closer than you think, or would like to know.

I know that it really and truely bothers some folks that a No Name brand produced
in an Asian factory, can be sold so much cheaper than a big brand name bike.
Partly because the Big Brand has to pay for Marketing and overhead
and big salaries and contracts...
Partly because they paid nearly double or more for virtually the same type bicycle?
Partly maybe, perhaps, because of some sort of prejudice? Maybe. Maybe not.

As far as welding goes, most welds in the factories are done by computerized robotic
welders. Which produce clean, efficient, and strong welds that can be done
in a much more timelier manner.
The technology of Asian made bikes is as good or better than most manufacturers
of bikes produced anywhere else in the world. But, like anything else...it will be argued!
:D
 

·
Incredibly slow
Joined
·
545 Posts
p9group said:
As for the Kuota, Scattante and EXO 303 being the same -- nonsense. They may be made in the same factory, along with the Orbea, Scott, Storck and others, but that is where the similarities end. QUOTE]



I think you may be a slight off the mark on that statement.
I would argue that Martec manufactures frames to a designed spec,
provided by the various bike companies who outsource from them.

Martec's layup, construction autoclave, etc processes/methodology would be
virtually the same for every frame, if not they would have to have untold number
of templates and build methods. Which would take much more time to produce.

:D
Okay, here are pictures of the Martec RL02, the 2003 Scattante CFR, the EPX 303, and the 2006 Scattante CFR. The first three are the same, the 06 CFR is not. Martec is the manufacturer, the others are re-badged. A while back Chuck's Bikes was selling the Martec frame without any decals on it, and a number of RBR members bought them. I don't know if Performance/Supergo is still sourcing from Martec or not.

Critchie, if you have any proof that the 03 CFR or the EPX 303 are not re-badged RL02s, please let us know. I don't know about that model of Kuota.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
425 Posts
Not the Talon

critchie said:
There are not that many, but

  • Kuota - some models
  • Pinarello
  • Felt
  • Fuji - may be slightly sloped but you barely tell
  • Orbea - have some slope, but again barely

FYI, any bike that has a one-piece front triangle is considered a monocoque. Kestrels are monos and they are sloping. Specialized makes the only true mono - the S-works Tarmac SL is a full one piece bike. QUOTE]

The Kestrel Talon is not sloping. Straight top tube with no slope whatsoever. The older Kestrel models did not have sloping top tube either. Only the Evoke.

Mike

Mike
 

·
Incredibly slow
Joined
·
545 Posts
Here are the Kuota Ksano, Kuota Korsa, and for grins an Argon 18. From the downtube, the Ksano is obviously not a re-badged Martec RL02, but the Korsa may be. I'm showing the Argon, which is not an RL02, just because I pulled it from the Martec website. They list it as their AR-C model. It looks like the picture order is Argon, Korsa, then Ksano, since the upload manager appears to put them in alphabetical order.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
282 Posts
p9group said:
As for the Kuota, Scattante and EXO 303 being the same -- nonsense. They may be made in the same factory, along with the Orbea, Scott, Storck and others, but that is where the similarities end. Carbon construction is about lay-up and grades of material used in the lay-up, there is no similarity between a Scattante and a real high-end carbon frame. Do not be fooled - there are more differences between carbon frames made in the same factory then Columbus tubes welded by Earnesto and the kid down the street. Those tubes are the same for both, the only difference is who does the welding.

I think you may be a slight off the mark on that statement.
I would argue that Martec manufactures frames to a designed spec,
provided by the various bike companies who outsource from them.

Martec's layup, construction autoclave, etc processes/methodology would be
virtually the same for every frame, if not they would have to have untold number
of templates and build methods. Which would take much more time to produce.

There are probably 5 to 6 templates at best. If there weren't
the cost would be significantly higher and hence the consumer
cost would reflect that. There are a few $1500 to $2000 complete carbon rigs
out there on the market today, thanks in part to lower production costs.
(which is a lengthy subject all by itself anyway...JIT etc...etc..)

I think another major reason for being able to purchase such high
end composite frames at low prices is due to the quantity discount
and single point manufacturer - Martec in this case.

Now, as far as material content and composite grade, then I could agree.
Some bikes having more carbon fiber, denser fiber, more strands, etc...
But the processes would likely be the same, Martec is not a huge company.

They have a total of 75 employees, and are actually an offshoot of parent
company Marshal Ind. To have seperate templates and construction methods
for each different brand. That would not be cost efficient and would be very time consuming for production.
I think the difference between the Scattente or Motobecane or ______ and
a "Very high end frame" are closer than you think, or would like to know.

I know that it really and truely bothers some folks that a No Name brand produced
in an Asian factory, can be sold so much cheaper than a big brand name bike.
Partly because the Big Brand has to pay for Marketing and overhead
and big salaries and contracts...
Partly because they paid nearly double or more for virtually the same type bicycle?
Partly maybe, perhaps, because of some sort of prejudice? Maybe. Maybe not.

As far as welding goes, most welds in the factories are done by computerized robotic
welders. Which produce clean, efficient, and strong welds that can be done
in a much more timelier manner.
The technology of Asian made bikes is as good or better than most manufacturers
of bikes produced anywhere else in the world. But, like anything else...it will be argued!
:D[/QUOTE]
I respectfull disagree. If you look at the bikes produced by Scott, Orbea and Storck (the three I mentioned), you will see that visually they look nothing like each other. As that is the case, they cannot have come from the same moulds. The fact that each manufacturer must have different moulds for their bikes is one of the factors in keeping their prices high. Martec may have their own moulds that are used to produce "off-brand" bikes for customers, thus the bikes that look similar -- see pics posted by next post in the thread.

Scott would be especially "insulted" as they claim not to be either a tube and lug or monocoque design. They say their frames are carbon welded -- I believe you can see more on that process on their site, but clearly there are different.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
282 Posts
bwana said:
Okay, here are pictures of the Martec RL02, the 2003 Scattante CFR, the EPX 303, and the 2006 Scattante CFR. The first three are the same, the 06 CFR is not. Martec is the manufacturer, the others are re-badged. A while back Chuck's Bikes was selling the Martec frame without any decals on it, and a number of RBR members bought them. I don't know if Performance/Supergo is still sourcing from Martec or not.

Critchie, if you have any proof that the 03 CFR or the EPX 303 are not re-badged RL02s, please let us know. I don't know about that model of Kuota.
I have no idea. They may be the same bike. I was saying that brand name bikes such as Scott, Orbea and Storck are certainly not similar to the those you mention (as did someone else). As my reply to the previous post says, since they look very different they cannot have come from the same moulds. That is one difference, but an even bigger difference is in specific lay-ups and the grades of carbon used.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
282 Posts
p9group said:
As for the Kuota, Scattante and EXO 303 being the same -- nonsense. They may be made in the same factory, along with the Orbea, Scott, Storck and others, but that is where the similarities end. Carbon construction is about lay-up and grades of material used in the lay-up, there is no similarity between a Scattante and a real high-end carbon frame. Do not be fooled - there are more differences between carbon frames made in the same factory then Columbus tubes welded by Earnesto and the kid down the street. Those tubes are the same for both, the only difference is who does the welding.
I think you may be a slight off the mark on that statement.
I would argue that Martec manufactures frames to a designed spec,
provided by the various bike companies who outsource from them.

Martec's layup, construction autoclave, etc processes/methodology would be
virtually the same for every frame, if not they would have to have untold number
of templates and build methods. Which would take much more time to produce.

There are probably 5 to 6 templates at best. If there weren't
the cost would be significantly higher and hence the consumer
cost would reflect that. There are a few $1500 to $2000 complete carbon rigs
out there on the market today, thanks in part to lower production costs.
(which is a lengthy subject all by itself anyway...JIT etc...etc..)

I think another major reason for being able to purchase such high
end composite frames at low prices is due to the quantity discount
and single point manufacturer - Martec in this case.

Now, as far as material content and composite grade, then I could agree.
Some bikes having more carbon fiber, denser fiber, more strands, etc...
But the processes would likely be the same, Martec is not a huge company.

They have a total of 75 employees, and are actually an offshoot of parent
company Marshal Ind. To have seperate templates and construction methods
for each different brand. That would not be cost efficient and would be very time consuming for production.
I think the difference between the Scattente or Motobecane or ______ and
a "Very high end frame" are closer than you think, or would like to know.

I know that it really and truely bothers some folks that a No Name brand produced
in an Asian factory, can be sold so much cheaper than a big brand name bike.
Partly because the Big Brand has to pay for Marketing and overhead
and big salaries and contracts...
Partly because they paid nearly double or more for virtually the same type bicycle?
Partly maybe, perhaps, because of some sort of prejudice? Maybe. Maybe not.

As far as welding goes, most welds in the factories are done by computerized robotic
welders. Which produce clean, efficient, and strong welds that can be done
in a much more timelier manner.
The technology of Asian made bikes is as good or better than most manufacturers
of bikes produced anywhere else in the world. But, like anything else...it will be argued!
:D[/QUOTE]

BTW, Martec is a rather large concern (per their site) -- they have 3000 employees.

<TABLE height=70 cellSpacing=5 cellPadding=5 width="99%" align=center border=0><TBODY><TR><TD width="100%">
Martec Ind Corp



</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE cellSpacing=3 cellPadding=3 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>


</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD><TABLE cellSpacing=5 cellPadding=5 width="100%" align=right border=0><TBODY><TR><TD width=236>Company Profile</TD><TD width=243></TD></TR><TR><TD width=236>Business Type• Exporter

• Manufacturer

</TD><TD width=243>Capital

• US$ 350,000

</TD></TR><TR><TD width=236>No. of Staff

• 3000
</TD><TD width=243>Executive/Title

• S.N. Lin/President </FONT>
</TD></TR><TR><TD width=236>Date Established

• 1992-01-01
</TD><TD width=243></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE cellSpacing=5 cellPadding=5 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TD colSpan=2>
Product Line





Badminton rackets in general
Bicycle frames
Bicycle front forks & fork parts
Bicycle parking racks
Bicycle rear forks
Golf clubs
Tennis rackets in general


</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
282 Posts
bwana said:
Here are the Kuota Ksano, Kuota Korsa, and for grins an Argon 18. From the downtube, the Ksano is obviously not a re-badged Martec RL02, but the Korsa may be. I'm showing the Argon, which is not an RL02, just because I pulled it from the Martec website. They list it as their AR-C model. It looks like the picture order is Argon, Korsa, then Ksano, since the upload manager appears to put them in alphabetical order.
I don't know where the pics of the Kuotas came from, but if you look at their site (http://www.kuota.it/international.html), they do not appear to be pics of their bikes. Additionally, they don't even make a model called the Korsa. Looking at the bikes on Kuota's site, they are clearly not just rebadged Martec house brands.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
41 Posts
Why not test out some bikes, see which one feels the best and just not worry so much about fashion, it's about the ride and you will ultimately be happier in the long run if you worry more about the ride then the look.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
698 Posts
Discussion Starter · #51 ·
nhl856 said:
Why not test out some bikes, see which one feels the best and just not worry so much about fashion, it's about the ride and you will ultimately be happier in the long run if you worry more about the ride then the look.
It's never just about ride or performance. There is something to be said for aestehtics. There is confidence inspiring aesthetics, there are happiness related aesthetics, etc. Ride is about fit, it's about geometry, it's about materials, it's about components. Not just how they work, but also how you feel about how they work. Just peruse these forums and look at the debates that rage: Campy vs. Shimano, Compact vs. Traditional, Aluminum vs. Steel vs. Titanium vs. Carbon vs. whatever is the frame material of the day. It's not just about the ride!
 

·
Incredibly slow
Joined
·
545 Posts
I found the pictures by going to Google images, and searching for Kuota Ksano. Just go to Google images, and search for Kuota Korsa. If Kuota don't make one, then a whole lot of retailers are doing something very wrong. On top of that, there is one in the product listings on the web site you are currently reading. As I said before, I don't believe the Ksano is a Martec. But if I were you I wouldn't bet big money on the Korsa not being one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
42 Posts
Pinarello Paris FP Carbon

WheresWaldo said:
that does not have a sloping top tube geometry. I much prefer the traditional level top tube to the compact frame design, and could use some assistance looking for examples with more traditional frame design.

TIA
Bud
Maybe you could go with the 2006 Pinarello Paris FP Carbon.
Fantastic look and even higher resistance than the F4:13.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
282 Posts
bwana said:
I found the pictures by going to Google images, and searching for Kuota Ksano. Just go to Google images, and search for Kuota Korsa. If Kuota don't make one, then a whole lot of retailers are doing something very wrong. On top of that, there is one in the product listings on the web site you are currently reading. As I said before, I don't believe the Ksano is a Martec. But if I were you I wouldn't bet big money on the Korsa not being one.
It appears to be an older frame they no longer do. Even the Ksano pic you show no longer looks quite like their newer model.

Cheers
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
79 Posts
critchie said:
I think you may be a slight off the mark on that statement.
I would argue that Martec manufactures frames to a designed spec,
provided by the various bike companies who outsource from them.

Martec's layup, construction autoclave, etc processes/methodology would be
virtually the same for every frame, if not they would have to have untold number
of templates and build methods. Which would take much more time to produce.

There are probably 5 to 6 templates at best. If there weren't
the cost would be significantly higher and hence the consumer
cost would reflect that. There are a few $1500 to $2000 complete carbon rigs
out there on the market today, thanks in part to lower production costs.
(which is a lengthy subject all by itself anyway...JIT etc...etc..)

I think another major reason for being able to purchase such high
end composite frames at low prices is due to the quantity discount
and single point manufacturer - Martec in this case.

Now, as far as material content and composite grade, then I could agree.
Some bikes having more carbon fiber, denser fiber, more strands, etc...
But the processes would likely be the same, Martec is not a huge company.

They have a total of 75 employees, and are actually an offshoot of parent
company Marshal Ind. To have seperate templates and construction methods
for each different brand. That would not be cost efficient and would be very time consuming for production.
I think the difference between the Scattente or Motobecane or ______ and
a "Very high end frame" are closer than you think, or would like to know.

I know that it really and truely bothers some folks that a No Name brand produced
in an Asian factory, can be sold so much cheaper than a big brand name bike.
Partly because the Big Brand has to pay for Marketing and overhead
and big salaries and contracts...
Partly because they paid nearly double or more for virtually the same type bicycle?
Partly maybe, perhaps, because of some sort of prejudice? Maybe. Maybe not.

As far as welding goes, most welds in the factories are done by computerized robotic
welders. Which produce clean, efficient, and strong welds that can be done
in a much more timelier manner.
The technology of Asian made bikes is as good or better than most manufacturers
of bikes produced anywhere else in the world. But, like anything else...it will be argued!
:D
BTW, Martec is a rather large concern (per their site) -- they have 3000 employees.

<TABLE height=70 cellSpacing=5 cellPadding=5 width="99%" align=center border=0><TBODY><TR><TD width="100%">
Martec Ind Corp



</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE cellSpacing=3 cellPadding=3 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>


</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD><TABLE cellSpacing=5 cellPadding=5 width="100%" align=right border=0><TBODY><TR><TD width=236>Company Profile</TD><TD width=243></TD></TR><TR><TD width=236>Business Type• Exporter

• Manufacturer

</TD><TD width=243>Capital

• US$ 350,000

</TD></TR><TR><TD width=236>No. of Staff

• 3000
</TD><TD width=243>Executive/Title

• S.N. Lin/President </FONT>
</TD></TR><TR><TD width=236>Date Established

• 1992-01-01
</TD><TD width=243></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE cellSpacing=5 cellPadding=5 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TD colSpan=2>
Product Line





Badminton rackets in general
Bicycle frames
Bicycle front forks & fork parts
Bicycle parking racks
Bicycle rear forks
Golf clubs
Tennis rackets in general


</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>[/QUOTE]


Actually, that is their parent company, Marshal. Martec is a subsidiary, that specifically makes the bikes. 75 employees. small factory. Marshal is the company that started to produce carbon composite tennis racquets, then spread into other products, and bicycles.

I agree about the Scott, and the other two mentioned. Different bikes.Some '05 Kuota's are the same though, as well as the EPX, the older Kestral 200 sci, 300 ems. Perhaps
they have some other Asian company producing their some of frames now. There are a
lot of of them. What is interesting is that most of the big brand bike and even smaller brands do not like to inform the consumer or their customers of that fact.

Luckily though, educated consumers can utilize the internet to research and investigate
the facts. It's not like they try to cover it up, but they do deny the fact when you ask them or tell them you know where the bike(s) are made and so on....it's no big deal to me, I'm glad free markets and global competition has enabled smaller bike companies to offer quality bikes at such reduced costs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
919 Posts
FWIW, the Basso Diamante is a monocoque frame that comes in conventional geometry. They don't seem to have a US distributor at the moment, but I have seen these on eBay from time to time.
 
41 - 56 of 56 Posts
Top