What is it?

[William]

What is it about certain frame materials that you like/dislike? If two bikes (blacked out to eliminate any influence because of builders rep), from two different builders, are built up with the same material, same geometries, same components, and same wheels & tires pumped up to the same PSI, do you think you could really discern much of a difference?
For those of you who have ridden many different materials, do you think you could discern more or less in relation to the given build material (steel to steel, Alum to alum, Ti to Ti etc?).

How much does marketing hype influence expectations and perception of a ride?

Something I posted yesterday got me to thinking a bit (dangerous I know). Contrary to marketing hype, in my experience, being successful in competition has much more to do with the rider than the magical properties of a certain material, or the components used. Put Lance on a Huffy (a REAL Huffy), and he's still most likely going to whoop "A" on your favorite Cat 1 rider on his bike of choice. What I said about 4/5's thinking they needed top of the line products to do well was not a dig, it is my experience, I believe I was a bit into that mindset as well when I started racing (though I didn't have top shelf equipment at that time). I soon learned that being successful had little to do with the level of equipment. There are niches that equipment made a difference. STI made gear selection faster & easier during sprinting. And aero components can make a difference in time trialing. But in meat & potatoes racing (road & Crit), having DA over 105, or Ti over steel, to racers of equal ability doesn't give you an edge. Just like riding a top of the line IF, Calfee, Pergoretti (sp?), or Serotta is not going to give you a big edge over the racer on the Fuji. It's the rider dang it! :p :)

William :)

[Dekonick]

No doubt - It always is about the engine.

Look at it this way: My experiences riding different materials has taught me that: 1) I prefer the ride of steel to any material - not that you can't tune other materials to behave one way or another but the steel frames I have ridden are the most comfortable thus far.

2) Looking at similar geomerty and components bikes of the same material should ride the same - but somehow my Serotta is more comfortable than that Waterford (or other high end steel) Why? I don't know. Is it in my head? Perhaps.

3) Performance probably wont change much given exact geo's and components, but one is probably MUCH more comfortable and I am certain given a choice the comfortable bike wins. Do you think the pro's ride the frames they do because they like them? I doubt it. Somehow Ill bet they would all get custom whatever's if they could have their choice.

Just my opinion

[saab2000]

.....A real Huffy, and he would probably break it. They really are crap.

But in the world of "real" bikes the differences become pretty small and then the engine is the number 1 factor, followed by fit and design IMHO.

I do not find huge differences in bikes and have not had a wide range of experience with different materials. Some here have a large fleet of widely varied bikes.

But I do remember my first and only experience on a Look KG96. It was 1989 and I was at the peak of my powers as a racer (nothing great mind you, but a heckuva lot stronger than I am today). I got to make a decent test ride of a KG96 which fit me. It was a revalation. The bike was light for its time and felt really lively. For all those who say that old carbon was flexy I counter that the flex made it dance up the hills.

I got to ride it around Madison, WI which has some nice short, steep hills and the thing seemed to climb them by itself. The bike was carbon. Since then I have had a thing for carbon bikes, but not all. I rode a Trek OCLV and did not have the same feeling.

I would love to try out the latest Look KG481SL as it is a descendant of the original KG96.

Most of my experience is on steel, but that Look carbon was an eye opener for me. There is life in carbon.

[bostondrunk]

Willy, are you trying to start an intelectuaulable discution??

Its all about labels. We could take a Nashbar aluminum frame, give it a snazzy paint job, put a Pegoretti decal on it, and everyone who rode it would think it was gods gift. "Just the right combination of rigidity and give, with the plushness only available from the master framebuilder dario....." hahaha

NOW go walk that basset hound!!! :beer:

[jerk]

drunk-
you don't know what you are talking about. there is a difference between a good frame and a great frame. that being said the majority of people who buy pegorettis probably can't tell the difference and don't deserve the bike any way....but there is a difference. ask the professional athletes who ride them hwn they're paid to ride something else. ask mr. pinarello who he went to when big mig needed something special. the bikes are straighter, the geometry is more thought out, etc. bicycles reveal their handling traits and ride charachteristics pretty quickly and a pegoretti is different than a nashbar special. go ride one. you didn't like the giant as much as your calfee and something tells the jerk it wasn't the decals that forced your hand.

jerk

[bostondrunk]

You're right, it wasn't the decals, it was the fit. I'm sayingthat given -same- geometries, and same/similar materials, the difference is then just paint. Just my opinion...

[Climb01742]

i did a little test recently: there's this tough hill near me. i rode it, back to back, on two merckxs, an mx leader and a team sc. guess which bike i rode to the top faster? same engine, different result...not huge, but noticeable. the engine is the #1 difference maker. but the frame matters. how much is open to debate, for sure, but i definitely can feel a performance difference in my frames.

[bostondrunk]

i did a little test recently: there's this tough hill near me. i rode it, back to back, on two merckxs, an mx leader and a team sc. guess which bike i rode to the top faster? same engine, different result...not huge, but noticeable. the engine is the #1 difference maker. but the frame matters. how much is open to debate, for sure, but i definitely can feel a performance difference in my frames.

Climbo, what is the hill you used?

[Climb01742]

bd, somehow i think i'm gonna regret answering this, but hey, i'm game...it's in sudbury, mass.

[bostondrunk]

I bet you made it to the top on the -first- bike you rode, because you would have been more tired on each subsequent try. I'm so smart....

[Climb01742]

actually, it was the second one i rode. but you're right to point out that the test was hardly a "controlled" test. there were variables. but i tried to minimize them. the hill is one i do hill repeats on, so i'm used to doing repeated rides up it. and i measured speed, cadence and time, trying to have as much data as possible. but no, it really wasn't terribly scientific, i was more just trying to quantify a feeling/sensation.

[bostondrunk]

OK, I'll guess the MX leader. Sweet frame.

[Climb01742]

wanna use your second guess? :banana:

[vaxn8r]

Are you saying two bikes with every component the same AND manufactured of exactly the same materials AND with exactly the same geo will ride the same?

Of course that isn't true. Do all AL bikes ride the same? No, it doesn't matter what it's made of some bikes are flexy, some are ultra stiff. Geo is part of the equation but so is the inherent design, how much material is used and where it is used (for example the Calfee gussets, or the Legend downtube).

If you're asking if everyone had the exact same design and tubing etc, I suppose then it would all come down to quality control as they ought to ride the same.

[William]

Man, I took BD's advice and took my Basset out for a walk and all heck breaks loose.:D

My head hurts.

William :)