can carbon be as "lively" as ti?

[Climb01742]

could someone explain something to me? i ask this not combatively, but with honest curiosity. someone at IF told me that they, too, are coming out with a carbon/ti combo frame. which makes, basically, everybody. (except of course e-richie.) so, please, help me understand what a carbon tube here or there (and everyone seems to have their own idea of where carbon or ti should go) can do that a ti tube can't or doesn't. as a former ottrott owner, i know carbom smooths the ride out quite nicely. but my ottrott had no snap, no liveliness. my IF, and my-now-departed hors, have/had lots of snap. doesn't carbon sap a frame's liveliness? can a carbon/ti combo be as snappy as all ti? and is there any consensus on which tubes of a frame are best suited to be ti or carbon? at open house, kelly showed us the four kinds of carbon tubes serotta now uses, and if i understood it correctly, ben said they were going to source an even lighter carbon tubing. so does lighter, less stiff carbon create more snap or liveliness? any edification would be greatly appreciated.

[MadRocketSci]

metals act like springs. whack a metal bar and it vibrates...for a long time. This means that energy dissipation is low, and that energy can be stored (in potential energy).

carbon fiber is a spring/damper. whack a cf tube and my guess is it wouldn't vibrate long. its damping characteristics change kinetic energy into thermal energy. carbon does not store energy well.

these are two basic dynamic properties of materials - spring stiffness and damping. your basic car suspension is a tuned combination of springs and dampers (shock absorbers).

snap is the ability of the frame to store energy. metal bikes have more.

carbon dissipates vibrational energy via its damping character. it won't snap well.

combine the two and you'll get some of both. the designer chooses the mix.

[bcm119]

In my limited experience, no. I think carbon has some great qualities, but "snap" is not one of them. Only ferrous bikes can really have "snap", and it it is due to the principle MadRocket describes.
My experience with carbon is with the CDA and an aluminum Orbea with carbon stays, and they both had a distinctly non-metal feel: sort of silky, magical, and smooth. It is quite nice actually, but it doesn't have the feel I love in a bike. So, a conclusion I have drawn from these experiences is that a) the main triangle's material is sort of trumped by the seat stays material in road feel, and b) specifically carbon seat stays rob a frame of the familiar snappy feel that all metal frames can have. Many disagree with me I know, but hopping on a CDA with the same wheels as my cIII was an eye-opening experience. If all my riding was on horrible surfaces, I might choose carbon stays; they certainly have their place.

[jeffg]

how about No!!?

IMO, carbon can be wonderful -- I love my Hampsten Z-1; however, it does not have the snap my Legend has. It is not necessarily a bad thing, just different. The key is both bikes are very responsive and handle beautifully. I am constantly amazed at how stiff the Hampsten/Parlee is (stand and whoosh -- it's like floating uphill) whereas the vertical complaince of the Legend gives such a satisfying feeling while climbing on small gears or giving a rhythmic feel while standing on a climb. Both bikes are fast, and I'm still not!

[timto]

Oh so cruel! Can you spill the details on what the configuration is going to be like? More ottrott than odonata? I like the idea of using different materials for 'desired' ride characteristics. Why not have the dampening of carbon but the zing of metal! Bring it on!!

[Climb01742]

timto--i know nothing more. happened to meet matt bracken at wheelworks last week and he mentioned that they were coming out with a carbon/ti combo. it was crowded and matt was in search of a weekend ride to borrow from wheelwork's fleet. i'm planning on writing matt for more info; if he devulges anything, i'll let you know. but after my experience with my ottrott, i gotta ride any carbon/ti combo to see if the reality meets the promise. in theory, it could be great. but for me, so far, the promise exceeds the reality.

[Dekonick]

heh - ti rear triangle with carbon front! - what a novel idea.....

HEHE

I am happy with steel and ti.

-gotta admit that as a heavy rider at 180-190 lbs carbon probably aint for me. Heck, when I was a light (for me) tyke in college, my carbon bike made me feel more like a fish than a cyclist. A decade and some later tech may have changed, but Ill stick to what I know I like. At least I know my Serotta's will be here longer than I will. :cool:

[Kevan]

I've tried a couple different plastic bikes and have to say there are differences in feel and ride quality, but there ain't been one under this keester that has the Ti spring. :cool:

[SPOKE]

Climb,
(my definition of "snap".....the feeling that the frame is giving a little bit back to the rider during extreme efforts such as sprinting or climbing)

so you had an Ottrott?? no snap......i'm confused. My Ottrott has what i consider very good "snap" due to the Ti rear end. the carbon main tubes do tone down the high frequency buzz that most steel/Ti frames have but it doesn't lack for "snap" when sprinting or climbing. Hor's has snap?? not IMO! too much spring? absolutely! if it had the OS chain stays then i might agree to your "snap" description. now consider this....Ottrott or Legend ST. the carbon seat stay is used as a spring since it is attached to the rear drops via a sealed bearing pivot. my experience tells me that the Ottrott/Legend ST brings the "snap" back. i will admit that the carbon seat stay does mute the high frequency road vibration quite a bit but it is not lacking for "snap".
now for the disclaimer: your wheelset may cause lack of "snap".

[vaxn8r]

You can't ride one bike and make judgments about materials. There's good ti and bad ti. I've owned bad ti, in fact the worst bike I ever rode was ti. I don't generalize this to include all ti bikes though. That would be silly wouldn't it?

There's also good carbon and bad carbon. It's very easy to overbuild carbon and give a ride of a rock or a board....like early aluminum bikes used to. Personally I think Calfee is on to something with the gussetts. I think the gussetts spread forces out further down along the tubes giving the bikes a unique and certainly not a "dead" ride quality..love it or hate it.

Finally, Serotta has made an Ottrott all of what, 2 years? I suspect there is a learning curve to getting the right tubes for the right rider's weight and style. Also, there seems to be no industry consensus for which tubes to make ti and which to make CF. Anyone think Ben's 1993 Legends are/were as good as todays? I think the Ottrott is a work in progress.

[vaxn8r]

I always thought the reason for the ST stays was to stiffen the rear triangle (stiffer than you could do with ti or steel without the weight penalty), not to soften or mellow the ride. Am I mistaken?

[dave thompson]

Vax: The ST rear end is a derivation of the DKS rear, in that it is pivoted near the rear dropouts.

[vaxn8r]

Ah yes, thanks for the correction Dave.

But speaking of CF set stays, I've heard that it's to mute road noise but isn't it (also) to stiffen up the rear triangle? Seems i've heard that claim made somewhere.

[Dr. Doofus]

Ok, last summer when the doc was Dr. 37-year-old shop rat, the shop carried Serotta (still does) and Seven (parted ways) and Calfee...and the Doc, who had a crappy (but cost) Marinoni ex-team bike, and an allegedly custom Moser (a 59 with a 74 sta...a guy at Red Rose said it was a custom that never got picked up, but the Doc suspects it was a frame they goofed the sta on, cause Moser don't do custom, at least not these days) kept flip-flopping about Seven and Serotta and Calfee cause he was getting to ride them outta the shop and they're all nice....

anyway, *in theory* the carbon monostay increases torsional stiffness. The Doc emphasizes *in theory*. Mr. Kirk wrote a good post a few months back about the benefit, or lack thereof, of carbon stays. I and he think Mr. Kirk is correct. Carbon stays are whizbang...good steel or ti seat stays will have as much compliance as carbon, and good steel or ti chainstays can give stiff drivetrain response...its all what the master (or mistress, DWF) does with the metal. But carbon does look cool, and cool sells.

We've had the carbon fork debate. Personally, the mouse prefers the feel of a carbon fork...he wanted a steel one for the CSi earlier this year, but I and he realize that we kind of like the "dead" feel from a CF fork. Comfy.

I and he and the mouse would never want a CF bike...we just don't like the *all* deadwood thing...and we didn't get the Legend even after we rode it and we *almost* signed off on our own...no, we like steel. Don't mean a thing if it ain't got that spring....

[bostondrunk]

Heres a question (rhetorical...)........
What is the difference between snap and flex?
Let me guess, your serotta has snap, but the frame you paid only 500 for has 'flex', and is thus bad.....
take your fingertip and tap a ti frame.....hear the 'ting'? now do the same for a carbon frame, different noise/feeling. Thats the difference, and some of what you might notice on the road. And the carbon frame will usually be lighter.
"Snap"......hahahahaha...."yes sir, that frame really gives back my energy as it is flexing....er...snapping back......" hahahahaha

[MadRocketSci]

all spring-mass systems have natural frequencies they like to oscillate at. Bike = spring, you = mass. Increase the frequency by increasing the stiffness of the spring. Too slow, the bike feels mushy. Too fast, feels like you're fighting it. just right, and the bike "snaps" with your pedaling input. my interpretation only, i don't design structures.

[Climb01742]

bostondrunk--for me, flex is a good thing. i've found that the right amount of flex, in the right place, makes a frame feel like it and i are working together, not against each other. on a too stiff frame, i feel like i'm fighting the frame, particularly out of the saddle. so i guess in my book, flex begets snap begets a nice ride.

[bostondrunk]

Could you please elaborate on 'fighting the frame'??
I can flex none of my bikes. They just go. If you are 'fighting' the bike, maybe it doesn't fit properly?

[jeffg]

I think that lateral/torsional stiffness is really all that matters. The BB stiffness and torsional stiffness of my Legend and Hampsten/Parlee are very similar, I would wager. The Hampsten does not have much vertical compliance at all, thus it gives a different, and at times, more efficient impression; however, the notion that the Hampsten is faster would be nonsense. Both bikes are very responsive -- the Legend is stiff where it counts and weighs about 1/2 lb more. I honestly think the reason folks like the Ottrott is this direct feel in the front with little to no vertical compliance, while you still get some spring in the rear traingle (assuming no ST stay). But the notion a Legend or a properly built carbon bike would be robbing you of efficiency seems quite a stretch.

[bostondrunk]

A lot of the supposed feel of a bike has to do with the decals on it as well....and the amount of $$$ that got slapped on the credit card....

[Climb01742]

no, bd, fit isn't an element. out of the saddle, i like a frame that "gives" a little. the frame and i fall into a rhythm, side to side, that kind of flows. stiff frames seem to jolt side to side, rather than flow. sorry for the lame language. its the best i can do.

[bostondrunk]

its not that I don't completely believe you, or believe that you think you can feel these things, I'm just saying that if we took your IF and put a Nashbar or Leader decal on it instead, man, that frame would suddenly have some bad riding characteristics... :bike:

[jerk]

boston drunk -
there is a difference between a good bike and a bad bike. it is unfortunate that your jealousy and geographic isolation (don't think those misplaced "u"s in words like color have gone unnoticed) prevent you from ever experiencing this difference. it doesn't matter if you are faster, younger, better hung or drunker than some of these "rich old dudes". trust the jerk on this one, his buddy climb-o could tell the difference between something you can afford to ride and something he can afford to ride... you could too...the jerk can most of the time but can't afford the bikes he owns now and doesn't deserve any of them anyway. but the jerk digresses...

on to the question and away from a rib at a guy who questions the jerk's authority when we all know the jerk is always right....the jerk is one hundred percent convinced it has less to do with the materials and more what the builder is trying to do with the materials. it is possible to build a springy, lively carbon bike. hop on a c50 with the proper length stem and drop and go find out for yourself.

jerk

[Climb01742]

boston drunk--i make no claims to being the most discerning critic of frames. i just know what i like and don't like. sorry to spoil your theory but the most costly frame i've owned -- an ottrott -- is one that got returned. and a frame i would never sell is the least costly one i've ever bought...a $500 mx leader off ebay. your cliches are very neat and clean. sorry to let my messy reality get in the way. but keep trying. :p

[bostondrunk]

haha, trust the jerk! Have Lance or Jan, or the rest of the pro peleton checked in with you lately to fill you in on their latest training info?! You seem to know it all.
hows the wife liking the peg? better than the hors?

"doesn't matter if you are faster, younger, better hung"...
Thanks....I think....

"your cliches are very neat and clean"
huh? Thanks....I guess... Well, thats cool that you like the MX. I'm just of the opinion in general that a lot of people here are about labels. And its strange that someone can have such strong, educated opinions about a bike when they are riding a new one every couple of weeks.

And while I can't afford the army of bikes most of you can, I can certainly afford any one or two bikes of my choice, and have tried many, of all materials. Maybe I'm just not old enough, and too well hung, to discern the difference in 'vertical compliance', 'snap', etc.

[Climb01742]

bd-one difficulty is using language to discribe subtle physical attributes or sensations. sure, most of the words used to talk about how a frame rides or feels are dopey. but that doesn't mean that differences don't exist. its like wine. is there any thing or anyone in the word that has dopey-er language than wine geeks? but do wines taste different? yep.

and its awfully unfair to label the majority of folks here as label-snobs. you simply don't know that. next year go to open house. meet some of the folks here. based on my experience, they're just folks who love bikes and riding. but be careful. the facts may get in the way of your assumptions. ;)

[dbrk]

An opinion from another old guy who has [tried] more bikes than sense...but why not?

I've had my share of carbon bikes and by far my favorite is the Hampsten Z1/Parlee. The fit is likely the reason and that the bike was designed with an awareness of my own preferences. When a great builder _really_ knows you the difference can be astonishing. Or the builder is a wizard, which is possible. I will repeat here an old saw but one that I find to be true: Carbon is still, dampening, quiet, it takes the road and mutes it like you are sitting in the Zendo. There's not the same palpable resonance and simple level of soft vibration that rings through a steel or ti frame. Aluminum too lacks that resonance, for the most part, until your fillings start to come out at mile marker 75...that being another story. I've grown to like the feel of the Z1 but not as much as it's fit, design, and zooty looks---all of which I like better than the way the bike actually feels on the road. The reason is just as I said: it's got no heartbeat, no clear sense of presence that offers that constant AUM beneath you as if the universe, the bicycle, and the inner Self were all saying the same thing. Okay, that was mystical tripe but if carbon is Zen, then steel is Tantric yoga: one is about quiet and stillness, the other is about divine sensuality. Ooooo...I suppose I might be able to say something that stupit [sic] and perhaps get away with it because you folks are my friends.

tongue planted firmly between cheeks, as it were,
dbrk

[bostondrunk]

Just to be clear, I've never called anyone here a snob, nor do I think the people here are like that. I do think there is a lot of 'mental' stuff at play when people are trying to rate their purchase. And there is nothing wrong with buying expensive bikes. OK, a great example of the type of comment that would bother me is when someone changes their wheelset from, say, Ksyriums to Topolinos, and claims that the new wheels made them 2 mph faster...........
As for the 'snap' issues, etc., well, OK, maybe I can't detect that stuff as much as other people. I also can't tell the difference between a $10 and a $50 bottle of wine..
Anyways, kind of back to the original topic, if you want a kick ass racing bike, carbon IMHO is a fantastic choice, and you should go try, as the jerk says, a C50, or a Calfee, or a Parlee.

[bostondrunk]

dbrk,
I didn't quite understand the last half of your post, but I'll say....as you have kind of stated before when we've discussed french fit, etc..
It depends on what you want the bike for. If you want a racing bike, want to climb as fast as possible, want to accelerate as fast as possible, etc., then a lighter carbon and/or aluminum frame is probaby a better choice than a 5 or 6 pound steel frame, regardless of the road 'ting' it gives..

[dbrk]

I'm not sure the last half of my last post actually _made_ any sense, so I'm with Bostondrunk fersure. I would also entirely agree that a kick arse race bike should be light, as light as carbon and aluminum can make them is a very good idea indeed. I might add however that the lightest steel these days is pretty darn light, though I entirely agree that physics insists that a racer use even lighter than that. For us mere mortals a really light steel bike or a ti bike (though Serottas are not notoriously light they are darn light enough) would make a longer lasting and perhaps more enjoyable race bike. Perhaps I am wrong about that. My last "serious" racing happened when we all rode 531 which tells you as much about my racing as it does the bikes...

I have no doubt that our brand awareness---the decals, the history, the look, etc.---influences our perceptions of the bikes we prefer (as it does most everything we prefer). There's no harm in liking what we like. What BD points out adroitly is, to my mind, a point that we'd all likely agree to, viz., that one's expressed preferences grate when they appear to suggest a superiority, almost a class notion of better. I've not seen any of that sort of opinion here, ever! Serottafolk, as varied as we are, don't play the One Up at all. I don't think BD made disapprobations directed at any individual here. I say that not to be irenic (though there is nothing wrong with that) but because conversations always happen at a number of levels. In the same vein, I admire Climb enormously for having the honesty (to say nothing of the oldfashionedtemerity) to express his preferences when at least one of them---Ottrott obesience---is fairly standard fare here (nothing wrong with _that_ either!)

As we all know there is no real correlation between one's means and one's character. Were that it so darn simple... I mean, both guys running for President are rich. One is a genuine war hero, what's the other? Poor guys are sometimes war heroes or just plain heroes, just as they too can be cowards. My point is that the inner mettle is so often nothing like its appearances; same is true watching a recreational rider go down the road. Wise? Kind? Jerk (NOT out kind, so present company excepted)? Could be anything, right?

not sure of the point, but only that there appears to me to be more agreement than has coursed over these surfaces,

dbrk

[va rider]

Where's Serotta Sandy when you need him?

[Andreu]

...........why we build bikes from Titanium....I thought it was heavier (denser) than steel?
A