[lancesbro]

Does the different construction techniques make that much difference?
I've got my heart set on either the Look 585 or Time VXR principally due to looks and write ups. My only worry is in reading a write up by Chris Boardman on the Look 585 although praising the ride he mentioned the dated technology.

Cheers

Jonny

 

[filtersweep]

You mean "timeless" technology. Remember, even Treks have lugs- albeit inside the tubes... I would take the Look any day. (Biased Look owner here)

 

[asawlrider123456789]

Dated?????????????? Ya Right

Who ever said that should get their head checked

If a frame that tons of pros, wannabee pros, weight weenie's, rich, poor(well they would buy it if they could ),Seniors, Ameuters, Juniors (dreaming), women, men, old timers, Steel Lovers, carbon lovers, aluminum lovers, titanium lovers, freds, pousers, whatever, you wanna call them, boonen fans, petacci fans, zabel fans, dog lovers, hippies, and John Lennon all lust, buy, want, need, ride, live for, die for and by now I think you get my point.

The 585 is just a flatout awesome frame and it's on my list of must buy list. I'll still love and stand by that frame in 25 years when it really is outdated. Look at the Merckx MX Leader. It was the top frame in the 80's, ridden and loved in the 90's and now is what I compare frames too when I am in the market for the frame. And when I rode this frame it was the first frame that I would put on the same list as the Merckx and that is really saying something. I have a Prince, a Soloist, a 6/13, a Masi Grand Criterium, I had a MX Leader that was totaled in a car accident wich was heartbreaking and losing it hurt more than the sprains, broken bones and blood loss, a caad 3, a caad 6, and have sold a cioc, a dream, a merak and tons of others not worth mentioning.

I'm not trying to brag but i'm trying to say i would trade all of those except the MX for the 585. So please dont say it's dated, buy it if you can, and ride the hell out of it.

 

[alienator]

Fit matters. Quality of construction matters. Type of construction doesn't. If you like the way it fits, the way it rides, and the way it looks, then buy it. That's all that matters.

 

[asawlrider123456789]

very well put alienator

 

[elvisVerde]

While I think that there are more important things...

like overall design, engineering, materials, and construction, However, I like the idea of lugs because if you really screw up a tube it may be easier to repair. Carbon frames are really nice, in general, but just don't crash.

 

[alienator]

like overall design, engineering, materials, and construction, However, I like the idea of lugs because if you really screw up a tube it may be easier to repair. Carbon frames are really nice, in general, but just don't crash.

This is one of the more persistent cycling wives tales, that CF is not crash durable. There are CF craftsmen who are repairing CF crash damage: Calfee, Crumpton (I think)....

 

[bwana]

This is one of the more persistent cycling wives tales, that CF is not crash durable. There are CF craftsmen who are repairing CF crash damage: Calfee, Crumpton (I think)....

I've got a new long term (I hope) CF shatter test going. My daughter just got a new CF lacrosse shaft, and the girls hit each others' sticks all the damned time. This is high-school level, so some of the whacks are pretty hard. We'll see.

 

[alienator]

I've got a new long term (I hope) CF shatter test going. My daughter just got a new CF lacrosse shaft, and the girls hit each others' sticks all the damned time. This is high-school level, so some of the whacks are pretty hard. We'll see.

It's funny you should say that because I've got a longterm study of the durability of polyester fishnet going on. It involves a girls' lacrosse team in fishnet bikinis wrestling in cherry jello. I'll let everyone know how it turns out.

 

[danl1]

I've got a new long term (I hope) CF shatter test going. My daughter just got a new CF lacrosse shaft, and the girls hit each others' sticks all the damned time. This is high-school level, so some of the whacks are pretty hard. We'll see.

Won't mean much to us, unless we're the guy riding the 20 lb. CF bike.

Chances are that shaft is a bit more sturdy and a heck of a lot heavier than a top tube. I'm not saying that a CF bike is fragile; though there some that are. Hell, there are Ti bikes that are fragile, too.

On the other hand, if CF was truly crash-worthy, Calfee wouldn't have use for this particular skill, would they?

It ain't about the stuff, it's about what they do with it. CF (and similar composites) are probably about the tops in strength/stiffness to weight of the common bike materials, if used appropriately. But a designer can go too far in either direction, making a heavy, stiff beast, or a light, fragile gossamer. Both exist on the LBS floor today.

 

[fbagatelleblack]

I've got a new long term (I hope) CF shatter test going. My daughter just got a new CF lacrosse shaft, and the girls hit each others' sticks all the damned time. This is high-school level, so some of the whacks are pretty hard. We'll see.

This brings up a good point. So many people say something along the lines of "My buddy's composite frame broke when he dropped it, so CF must be easily breakable, right?"

WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!

A much more accurate statement would be, "When you try to build a bike frame that weighs two pounds, it's likely to be easily breakable."

How long do you think a steel frame which weighed the same as a Trek Madone frame would last? Not bloody long, I'm guessing. Conversely, if you told a good composites designer to design a frame that weighed the same amount as a 1988 Merckx SP frame, how sturdy do you think it could be? I'm guessing the designer could come up with something that could withstand the impact of a bowling ball dropped from 20 feet. Maybe that's an exageration, but maybe not...

It's like others have said; it ain't the material, it's the design. Whatever material you choose, if you design it right, you can pass the frame on to your grandkids. If you design it to be the lightest thing ever made from that material, expect problems.

My Two Cents,

FBB

 

[bwana]

It's funny you should say that because I've got a longterm study of the durability of polyester fishnet going on. It involves a girls' lacrosse team in fishnet bikinis wrestling in cherry jello. I'll let everyone know how it turns out.

Well, I can recommend a couple of 180 lb. goalies you might enjoy watching.

 

[bwana]

Won't mean much to us, unless we're the guy riding the 20 lb. CF bike.

Chances are that shaft is a bit more sturdy and a heck of a lot heavier than a top tube. I'm not saying that a CF bike is fragile; though there some that are. Hell, there are Ti bikes that are fragile, too.

Well, it is 80 cm long, and weighs 165 grams. I don't think that is any heavier than any top tube.

 

[alienator]

Well, I can recommend a couple of 180 lb. goalies you might enjoy watching.

I was thinking more along the lines of these two lacrosse players.....

 

[KATZRKOL]

Stupid.

Does the different construction techniques make that much difference? Boardman on the Look 585 although praising the ride he mentioned the dated technology.

Cheers

Jonny

Boardman is not an engineer, and always crashes his bike. WTF does this assinine, bad tooth having brit know? Both manufacturing techniques have their pros/cons too complex to describe here. However, I'll toss an easy one out now. . With lugs, if your 3K frame gets one tube broken, it can be replaced. With monocoque construction you've an expensive paper weight.

 

[elvisVerde]

I think that you confused yourself...

First of all, I did not say CF was not repairable, only that doing it a tube at a time makes some sense to me, and has a utilitarian appeal to me. I think that I am entitled to an opinion.

On one hand you say that it is a wives tale that CF is not crash durable, and your evidence is that you name someone who does repairs. My point is not refuted. The fact that some few (sic) people can do top-flight CF repair does not make CF durable. There is no continuity in your thinking.

Are you trying to say that since there are so few folks who seem to be involved in CF repair, that CF is, therefore, very durable, crashworthy, and does not need repair? Jeez, I hope not.

I have seen some highlight-reel quality CF destruction and failures, and whether or not it is--technically--repairable, doesn't make it durable. A lot of CF XC bikes have accumulated some nasty dings and dongs, and what is going on deep in the "matrix" doesn't look pretty. What surprised me was that some of the bikes were coming slowly apart, but were not catastrophic failures, like some bars and road forks I have seen. I never thought CF and MTB made sense for civilians, anyway.

This is one of the more persistent cycling wives tales, that CF is not crash durable. There are CF craftsmen who are repairing CF crash damage: Calfee, Crumpton (I think)....

 

[alienator]

First of all, I did not say CF was not repairable, only that doing it a tube at a time makes some sense to me, and has a utilitarian appeal to me. I think that I am entitled to an opinion.

On one hand you say that it is a wives tale that CF is not crash durable, and your evidence is that you name someone who does repairs. My point is not refuted. The fact that some few (sic) people can do top-flight CF repair does not make CF durable. There is no continuity in your thinking.

Are you trying to say that since there are so few folks who seem to be involved in CF repair, that CF is, therefore, very durable, crashworthy, and does not need repair? Jeez, I hope not.

I have seen some highlight-reel quality CF destruction and failures, and whether or not it is--technically--repairable, doesn't make it durable. A lot of CF XC bikes have accumulated some nasty dings and dongs, and what is going on deep in the "matrix" doesn't look pretty. What surprised me was that some of the bikes were coming slowly apart, but were not catastrophic failures, like some bars and road forks I have seen. I never thought CF and MTB made sense for civilians, anyway.

Then how about I dumb things down a bit so you can understand them.

1. I mentioned people who are repairing CF because they are repairing CF. I did not offer it as proof of anything. You reading it as such is either a reading error or a comprehension error.

2. I don't have to refute your point. The fact is that you tried to make a point without any factual basis. Heresay does not a fact make. Watching a video does not a fact make. But if that's how your thinking goes, then I suppose watching the driver's tub--made of CF--of a Formula 1, CART, or IRL car bouncing intact down the track is evidence that CF isn't as friable as you would paint it.

3. What you clearly don't see nor do you acknowledge is that material X isn't the factor that determines the durability of a frame. What determines the durability of the frame is design, construction, and the way a given material is used. People who claim otherwise either don't understand materials science, science in general, or engineering, or they don't care to expend the effort to get some rudimentary knowledge.

So the fact is, you have zero experimental data, zero empirical proof, and apparently no tools with which to analyze the details of a claim, such as the one you made.

When you actually have something more than claims....like maybe proof, critically thought out and empirically reasoned arguments......you can try again.

 

[dirtysprocket]

To answer the original question without interjecting "pride of ownership" bias: yes- there are advantages and disadvantages to lug vs. monocoque, as well as other types of carbon construction. To see some of them according to Calfee, check this out......

http://www.calfeedesign.com/whitepaper1.htm

 

[alienator]

To answer the original question without interjecting "pride of ownership" bias: yes- there are advantages and disadvantages to lug vs. monocoque, as well as other types of carbon construction. To see some of them according to Calfee, check this out......

http://www.calfeedesign.com/whitepaper1.htm

Note the "according to Calfee." White papers are NOT unbiased reports: they are reports written to sell a customer a product or sway a customer to a particular line of thinking. There is no objective, unbiased standard for white papers any more than there is for tv commercials. Read white papers with a healthy bit of skepticism.

 

[fbagatelleblack]

Note the "according to Calfee"... Read white papers with a healthy bit of skepticism.

Yeah! He's just trying to trash talk CF so he can sell more bamboo bikes! That tree-huggin' freak...



- FBB