[samh]

How does this 10+ year old frame compare to carbon fiber frames of today?
Are other carbon fiber frames more responsive or better handling?

 

[Marc]

How does this 10+ year old frame compare to carbon fiber frames of today?
Are other carbon fiber frames more responsive or better handling?

which this is this?

///I see nada linkage or pic

 

[mprevost]

Older Kestrel

How does this 10+ year old frame compare to carbon fiber frames of today?
Are other carbon fiber frames more responsive or better handling?

Responsiveness and handling has nothing to do with material. It is about geometry.

Mike

 

[merckxman]

Responsiveness nothing to do with material?

I don't think that's true.

Original poster: which Kestrel model were you referring to? I liked the 200SCI I had. Have not had the opportunity to try any of the newest all carbon bikes.

 

[tubafreak]

Just off of theory, but the newer bikes will likely be a bit stiffer and less harsh-riding. That's the effect of continuous product development. After that, it's just a matter of preference, try stuff and see if you like it.

 

[orange_julius]

First-order approximation

I don't think that's true.

Original poster: which Kestrel model were you referring to? I liked the 200SCI I had. Have not had the opportunity to try any of the newest all carbon bikes.

Merckxman is right. Newer material tend to have higher density and stiffness, meaning that you can build a bike with the same density and stiffness with less weight. And that's just the first-order approximation. Add to that better manufacturing techniques and technologies to shape the bike in more ways than you thought possible a few years ago.

Sure, a lot of the shaping things are gimmicks, but some of the innovations - at least in terms of weight - are real.

You can build a bamboo frame that weighs 600 grams, but it's probably not going to be very rideable.

 

[Bob Ross]

You can build a bamboo frame that weighs 600 grams, but it's probably not going to be very rideable.

On the other hand, Craig Calfee can build a bamboo frame that weighs 1800 grams, and by all reports it's quite rideable, even better damped than carbon.

Anyone ever see the molded polystyrene racing bike frames that some manufacturers were toying with back in the 1970's? I don't remember if anyone ever brought one to market. It was the first time I'd seen a <1000g frame...and at least a decade before I saw the next one.

 

[samh]

I have the 200sci.

 

[samh]

its a little flexible but very light vs my cheap aluminum

 

[cwg_at_opc]

Responsiveness and handling has nothing to do with material. It is about geometry.

Mike

this is the dumbest thing i've seen repeated here over and over;
try making a bike with balsa wood with "perfect" geometry and
we'll see just how far you get. making a great bike is about knowing
how to use the materials available to you; that _includes_ knowing
what the appropriate geometries are for a range of sizes/riders/purposes.

back on topic: i own a 1991 Kestrel 200ems which is still a great bike.
it's setup with Dura Ace, 50/38x12-25, paragon Ti BB, flite Ti saddle,
korso wheels, michelin pro2race - should weigh about 19lbs, a bit
heavy by todays standards, but quite light for 15 years ago. i ride it
every day and i still love the ride. while it doesn't have the stiffest
bottom bracket, it is a great climber and descender. out of the saddle
sprints will flex the BB area a bit(chain rub on the front der.) but it's
not horrible. i would describe the ride as responsive yet supple.
friends have called it 'dead', mostly because it's really quiet going over
bumps. it's not 'lively' or 'boingy' like some metal frames, steel/Ti.
compared to todays CF, it's too flexy to race on and it could be lighter.
if i was to replace my 200ems today, i'd look at the following:

CF:
scott cr1/plasma(for TTs)
trek madone 5.2/5.9
specialized roubaix
ridley noah
tommaso(the new ones that they haven't shown except for
some sexxy, partial pics...)
pinarello montello(TT)
orbea opal/onix

other:
titus fcr isogrid/exogrid
seven
moots

if i'm restricted to a reasonable budget, i'd also look at the Felt
line as they represent a really good value.

as you might guess, i'm a bit partial to CF, but not averse to
trying out some real composite bikes, like the titus.

gotta win the lottery so i can go hog-wild and make a bunch
of bikes...

 

[Mark McM]

Just off of theory, but the newer bikes will likely be a bit stiffer and less harsh-riding.

Stiffer and less harsh-riding!

Responsive, yet compliant!

Well, never let it be said that that polar contradiction ever stood in the way of advertising hyperbole.

 

[covenant]

Stiffer and less harsh-riding!
Responsive, yet compliant!
Well, never let it be said that that polar contradiction ever stood in the way of advertising hyperbole.

From one carbon bike company:

This is the beauty of carbon composites – and monocoque structures in particular. Great resistance to unwanted flexing can be achieved with very good vertical compliance and damping characteristics.

also from Calfree:

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

read the whole thing....very enlightening.

 

[Mark McM]

From one carbon bike company:



also from Calfree:

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

read the whole thing....very enlightening.

Marketing drivel.