why do bicycle corporations only do monocoque carbon?

[eddief]

Seems most of the big boys in the industry do monocoque carbon frames. And the alleged "craftsmen" do something with round tubes, glue, lugs. Why wouldn't, let's say Specialized, do more with round carbon tubes and lugs?

Couldn't they get their off shore factories to snap together tinker toys just as easily as the complex mold and blow monocoque?

Is it all about costs or is there something to be said about the alleged "superior" performance of monocoque?

[bicycletricycle]

larger investment up front in tooling but cheaper to make per unit. Since custom is not required there is no reason to do the tube to tube method. Time, Marin, Look, Trek make non monocoque frames.

[EDS]

Seems most of the big boys in the industry do monocoque carbon frames. And the alleged "craftsmen" do something with round tubes, glue, lugs. Why wouldn't, let's say Specialized, do more with round carbon tubes and lugs?

Couldn't they get their off shore factories to snap together tinker toys just as easily as the complex mold and blow monocoque?

Is it all about costs or is there something to be said about the alleged "superior" performance of monocoque?

Most aren't doing one piece monocoque construction anymore. Frames are assembled by joining the molded pieces together.

Your dislike of the method probably Makes meaningful discussion pointless.

[bicycletricycle]

did anyone ever get a whole frame molded at one time? usually its front triangle and then separate seat and chainstays, right? i remeber someone at gita claiming the merckx axm was all one piece, at least i think i remember that.

[eddief]

don't think i said what i like and don't like. i was simply asking a question about which i was curious and did not know the answer.


Most aren't doing one piece monocoque construction anymore. Frames are assembled by joining the molded pieces together.

Your dislike of the method probably Makes meaningful discussion pointless.

[MattTuck]

A buddy of mine once told me that his Kestrel was made as a single piece. I believe he said that they stopped making them that way due to issues with the process.

I believe at that time, they had a salt form that they wrapped the carbon around, and then used some process to dissolve the salt, leaving the carbon...

[eddief]

seems like you could do tube to tube on 5 compact-style frame sizes pretty easily. do you think/know that monocoque is really more efficient/cheaper in volume?

seems like tinker toy selected tube sets might be faster than the many layer layup mold, blow, and bake...and then hooking the assemblies together?


larger investment up front in tooling but cheaper to make per unit. Since custom is not required there is no reason to do the tube to tube method. Time, Marin, Look, Trek make non monocoque frames.

[bicycletricycle]

its the hand work after the hand wrapping that would take the time on a tube to tube, probably why most of the production ones use lugs.

[Ken Robb]

and there is the labor to make the tubes and lugs before anyone glues them together.

[eddief]

could not Specialized design lugs in about 4 minutes, choose super tubes, glue em up, and sell non-monocoque bikes? way less hand work, way less swoopy bikes, and all is good?

is it Specialized pushing monocoque or customers who think they want it?

its the hand work after the hand wrapping that would take the time on a tube to tube, probably why most of the production ones use lugs.

[benb]

I'd rather have the monocoque.. the fewer the pieces the better with carbon IMO.

Do you beg car companies to go back to tube frames? Would you prefer airplanes stopped using monocoque designs?

Carbon aint the thing to ride if you don't want to try "new" designs.

[bicycletricycle]

they could, then a frame is 10 carbon parts instead of 3,
i dont know if cost is the only factor but it must be in the equation, they might also believe that the monocoque yields a better frame and i would be inclined to agree with them. Generally, the less seams the better.

[martinrjensen]

Actually you did say what you don't like and don't like. Classifying frame building as tinker toys isn't complimentary and using the term "allegedly superior" infers that you don't believe it. Re-read your own post.don't think i said what i like and don't like. i was simply asking a question about which i was curious and did not know the answer.

[1centaur]

Fewer parts should mean greater control of the final product, as well as greater perceived differentiation. Shapes are much easier in monocoque form too. There is no reason why it would be the actual joining of the tubes that optimizes the ride. All those computer programs that seek optimal layup schedules can't predict the effects of joining as well as they can the effects of parts.

Yes, my AXM is the only frame I have that I think is a true monocoque.

[RPS]

seems like you could do tube to tube on 5 compact-style frame sizes pretty easily. do you think/know that monocoque is really more efficient/cheaper in volume?

seems like tinker toy selected tube sets might be faster than the many layer layup mold, blow, and bake...and then hooking the assemblies together?
Perhaps it's more about monocoque being too expensive in low volumes, hence only the large volume manufacturers can justify the initial investment and keep costs reasonably down.

[eddief]

equal my opinion. those are just words, i do not have an opinion, and i am seeking information. and tinker toys are great, simple, wonderful toys.

Actually you did say what you don't like and don't like. Classifying frame building as tinker toys isn't complimentary and using the term "allegedly superior" infers that you don't believe it. Re-read your own post.

[fogrider]

I believe my kestrel is monocoque, they made a big deal of it back then. it meant spending bucks on the form. I believe there was bladder inside that was filled for pressure. the issue was it meant a limited number of sizes and the design was not going to change. with lugs and tubes, custom builders can build pretty much any size the can build in any other material. and without the mold, they can change the design and look of the bike anytime they want. think about frame builders going to a stiffer downtube for a heavier rider and a curved seat stay for a rider that wants a softer rear end; with monocoque, you cant do that.

[happycampyer]

From the few conversations I have had with Tom Rodi at Parlee, who make custom frames by hand using tube-to-tube construction in the US and stock frames using some type of molding in Asia, there are pluses and minuses to each approach. As others have noted, the one thing that lugs or tube-to-tube construction permit is customization—both in terms of geometry and tube selection/ride quality.

There are others here who have far more experience with carbon bikes than I do (Pez, Jack B and 1Centaur jump to mind), but over the last several years I have owned over a dozen carbon bikes made using all of the different techniques, and have ended up keeping only the "tinker toy" ones.

[uno-speedo]

Why wouldn't, let's say Specialized, do more with round carbon tubes and lugs?

The big S did bond carbon and ti (yes not carbon) lugs ages ago on an MTB frame, though not on a mass production scale. I would like to find one of those!

[rice rocket]

When strength to weight is the name of the game, using long fibers that run the entire top tube and downtube (Cervelo does this in their "boomerang construction" or whatever, as does Specialized) will mean less material to achieve the same strength. Same concept is used to make bottom brackets.

A full monocoque is unwieldy, if you botch a layup, you botch a frame. Separating it into it's "stressed members" makes sense in a production setting.

[jpw]

A buddy of mine once told me that his Kestrel was made as a single piece. I believe he said that they stopped making them that way due to issues with the process.

I believe at that time, they had a salt form that they wrapped the carbon around, and then used some process to dissolve the salt, leaving the carbon...

I think they were made in Japan out of a mold costing something like $250,000 each to manufacture.

[Bob Ross]

From the few conversations I have had with Tom Rodi at Parlee, who make custom frames by hand using tube-to-tube construction in the US and stock frames using some type of molding in Asia


Wait, are you saying that the Parlee Z4 and Z5 are not made by hand using tube-to-tube construction?

[happycampyer]

Wait, are you saying that the Parlee Z4 and Z5 are not made by hand using tube-to-tube construction?From what I understand (fwii), they are made by hand using some sort of molding process. I can't find the original version of this post, but if you read the quoted post from z1 (Tom Rodi at Parlee), Tom gives a fairly detailed explanation of the difference in construction methods:

http://fairwheelbikes.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4215

Fwii, the difference in price is due in large part to the difference in labor costs, economies of scale (i.e., no custom) and other details (e.g., aluminum vs. ti dropouts, etc.). Also fwii, getting the QC right was key for Parlee to move in this direction (i.e., to create a frame that rode similarly to a "stock" Z3 but built offshore at a price point that is competitive with the big box brands). So, to use eddief's term, the Z4 and Z5 are only part tinker toy, whereas the Z1 - Z3 are full tinker toy.*

Also, in case there is any question where they are made, in this thread Tom confirms that the Z4 is made in Taiwan (this was before the Z5 was introduced, which is made by the same manufacturer as the Z4):

https://fairwheelbikes.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=4541&start=0

*P.S. I have a "stock" Z3 and have ridden a Z4, and they are among the best-riding bikes I have ridden.

[PaulE]

I also think there would be a lot of quality control vs. cost issues in mass producing tube to tube construction carbon fiber frames. To ensure good frame alignment would require carefully gluing the tubes together and holding the assembly in a jig while it cures. Once the layup is in the mold, out comes a perfect finished product with no alignment issues.

[happycampyer]

I wouldn't go so far to say that molded frames never have alignment issues. QC is key, no matter what the process is.

[zap]

Look Monoblade KG series bikes in the early 90's are one piece monocoque. First one piece (except do) carbon fork too.

[Bob Ross]

Tom gives a fairly detailed explanation of the difference in construction methods:

http://fairwheelbikes.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4215


Ah, that was very elucidating, thanks.

[Kontact]

As far as I've been able to tell, the only popular true monocoque carbon road frame was the first several generations of Kestrels. The people that formed Kestrel split on a basic engineering argument about the problems of bladder molded monocoque vs. molded multi-part construction. The people that went the other way brought us the molded sectioned Trek OCLV and the Aegis bikes that were sold as Bassos and several other names.

Fast forward in time and no one uses monocoque - including Kestrel. Internal bladder molding doesn't compact the carbon as nicely as using metal dies.

Non-lug tube construction has been in use almost as long - the Carbon Frames Lemonds of the early '90s are not actually lugged, and Parlee Z1s aren't either. Both companies use dies to form the joints rather than pre-made lugs.

Colnago, like Look, Time and others use lugs. Here's a video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRt4p7M1QFw

Why not use lugs and tubes over molded parts? Because the lug method is more difficult and involves more parts and labor. A tubed bike requires 4 dies molded lugs, at least 2 of which must be changed for different frame sizes. Then those lugs have to be assembled with tubes, which require mitering. With molded sections like the Aegis or OCLV frames, you still have to mold pieces 4 or so pieces like you would with lugs, but you skip needing tubes as well.

On top of all that, molded bikes are more distinct looking, which is important both for branding and to have "features" like shapes for ride character or aerodymanics.


With the exception of bladder molded monocoque, all the methods work well, so the reason to use different methods mainly comes down to frame weight and the type of construction best utilized by the factory setting. Parlee and Calfee want to be able to vary geometry and work in small numbers, so mitering tubing and building the joins makes sense. Trek wants to make millions of frames, so piecing them together from a few number of pre-molded components makes sense for them. Lugged construction involves a certain amount of waste weight, so that method has fallen into disfavor among weight conscious makers, including Colnago and Look.


There are methods that no one has really applied on a factory scale, like full frame filament winding, so we really don't know yet what the best way of making a frame is. But using the largest possible sections that can be formed over a die, like Cervelo does, is probably about as light and strong a method that exists out there.

Then again, there are methods of making metal frames that haven't been tried yet, either, so we don't know the limits of any of the common materials.

[eddief]

"Fast forward in time and no one uses monocoque - including Kestrel. Internal bladder molding doesn't compact the carbon as nicely as using metal dies."

Just curious, is not bladder molding the method most big companies use; Spec, Trek, Giant, etc? If yes, then the process must work pretty well or very well for their bikes?

Again, not saying what's better or not, just trying to learn more about the ins and outs of who chooses what and what difference it makes for the manufacturers and if the resulting finished frameset are differentiated one from the other.

That Colnago carbon manufacturing video was elucidating :). So much handwork in the building and finishing processes.

Muchas Gracias.

[benb]

I'm not sure why bladder molding vs stamping or some other kind of mold would mean the frame isn't a monocoque either..

Monocoque simply means the outer skin provides the strength rather then some internal support.

I would actually say it's actually arguable whether or not any bicycle should actually be using "monocoque" to describe it's design. No matter how you build the bike it is still a bunch of tubes making a supporting frame.. there is no useful internal volume like there is with a car/boat/airplane/building, and even a regular old steel bike does not have an "internal frame", and no bicycle has a useless exterior skin.

[Kontact]

"Fast forward in time and no one uses monocoque - including Kestrel. Internal bladder molding doesn't compact the carbon as nicely as using metal dies."

Just curious, is not bladder molding the method most big companies use; Spec, Trek, Giant, etc? If yes, then the process must work pretty well or very well for their bikes?

Again, not saying what's better or not, just trying to learn more about the ins and outs of who chooses what and what difference it makes for the manufacturers and if the resulting finished frameset are differentiated one from the other.

That Colnago carbon manufacturing video was elucidating :). So much handwork in the building and finishing processes.

Muchas Gracias.
You're correct, bladders are still used, but not in the way Kestrel did to produce a whole frame in one go. I think I made my post confusing:

Kestrel used relatively low pressure, disposable bladders inside the frame members. Because of the layup method and need for the bladders to be light enough to be left inside, the bladders were very thin and low pressure.

OCLV and similar processes use an external die and an internal, reusable and high pressure bladder that is very strong and thick. When the part is done, the bladder is pulled out.

The other way is it use internal and external dies with access ways that are large enough to withdraw the internal dies after curing under mechanical pressure. Then the resulting units can be assembled into a frame, just like the OCLV parts are.

Either way, you get a piece that is both lug and tube sections, all in one. Easier to assemble than lug and tube, and just as inflexible.

If you want custom geometry, you have to build the joint around the tubes, or machine the lugs to accept different tube angles, like Serotta does. Or make custom lugs out of something else, like Ti tubing, like the Ottrot.

Seven's approach is interesting - they have molded sections that can be machined for different geometries. The patent is under Rob Vandermark's name.

[fogrider]

I'm not sure why bladder molding vs stamping or some other kind of mold would mean the frame isn't a monocoque either..

Monocoque simply means the outer skin provides the strength rather then some internal support.
I would actually say it's actually arguable whether or not any bicycle should actually be using "monocoque" to describe it's design. No matter how you build the bike it is still a bunch of tubes making a supporting frame.. there is no useful internal volume like there is with a car/boat/airplane/building, and even a regular old steel bike does not have an "internal frame", and no bicycle has a useless exterior skin.
I think the term "monocoque" does refer to the strength is from the shell, but kestrel made a big deal about one strand of carbon from the headtube going to the rear dropouts. I find this a little odd since they never made a full carbon fork.

[Bob Ross]

I think the term "monocoque" does refer to the strength is from the shell

Right, I get the impression that the bicycle industry coopted the word "monocoque" and arbitrarily decided to give it a different meaning. Hence when cycling enthusiasts talk about carbon "monocoque" frames they (at least think they) are referring to a frame molded in a single piece, rather than made from multiple pieces joined together.

[Mark McM]

Right, I get the impression that the bicycle industry coopted the word "monocoque" and arbitrarily decided to give it a different meaning. Hence when cycling enthusiasts talk about carbon "monocoque" frames they (at least think they) are referring to a frame molded in a single piece, rather than made from multiple pieces joined together.

Calling a frame a "monocoque" is an oxymoron. The structural part of a chassis is either made up of a framework, or it uses an external skin to carry the structural loads (aka "stressed skin"). By definition, a bicycle frame can not be a monocoque.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monocoque

[Kontact]

Whether it matches previous definitions or not, the point of calling Kestrels mono in the first place was to denote the lack of internally overlapped joins, lugs or sleeves.

While the frame is, by definition, a frame or framework, the way the frame members are produced can be trussed, sleeved, ribbed, externally gussetted or monocoque. The Kestrel structure doesn't have any internal reinforcement or overlaps, and easily meets the definition of a "structural skin" item.


Anyway, "monocoque" is pretty clearly an inclusive description. The first monocoque aircraft were made in fuselage halves, and the mono part didn't include the wings. So arguing that a Kestrel isn't truly monocoque would be like arguing that almost nothing ever has been.

For cyclists, it is a term with a particular meaning that helps us separate the different composite methods when reading about how stuff is made. In that, the definition is very useful.

[fogrider]

Calling a frame a "monocoque" is an oxymoron. The structural part of a chassis is either made up of a framework, or it uses an external skin to carry the structural loads (aka "stressed skin"). By definition, a bicycle frame can not be a monocoque.
I don't see how by definition a bicycle frame can not be a monocoque, if anything, all bicycle frames are monocoque since the tubes are the structure and the skin. a zeppelin would be something that has a non structural external skin and not a monocoque. which means if anything calling a bike frame monocoque would be redundant.

[Kontact]

I don't see how by definition a bicycle frame can not be a monocoque, if anything, all bicycle frames are monocoque since the tubes are the structure and the skin. a zeppelin would be something that has a non structural external skin and not a monocoque. which means if anything calling a bike frame monocoque would be redundant.
He's saying that it is not a mono because a frame is a frame - an open framework in a diamond shape, rather than continuous shape, like this:

http://www.retrobike.co.uk/forum/files/trimble_aero_4_128.jpg

But one could make the same argument about standard aircraft with clearly defined wings, fuselage and tail, so it isn't an important point.

[eddief]

http://velonews.competitor.com/2009/07/bikes-and-tech/tech-update-with-lennard-zinn-specialized-for-2010_94613

maybe this is quadcoque.

[Mark McM]

I think you're missing the point. A frame is a load bearing truss, beam or latticework that joins the working components together. A monocoque has no separate frame, but uses its outer skin as the load bearing member. A standard (non-faired) bicycle has no outer skin, so it can't be a monocoque. Just because a frame may be composed of hollow tubes does not make it a monocoque.


This is a mocoque bicycle:

http://www.varnahandcycles.com/press/press1_01.jpg http://www.varnahandcycles.com/press/press1_02.jpg



This is not:

http://rbr.info/components/com_virtuemart/shop_image/product/2008_Challenge_V_4887ac30a5eea.jpg

[Charles M]

Stop wasting time answering an improperly loaded question...



Lots of large scale producers use tube to tube (including a few in this thread considered monocoque).



And stop thinking that yours is only one correct definition of monocoque... There are many...


The quality of the process varies from brand to brand ( even from the same large scale producer, building for several brands, in some cases because they build to spec) making most of the generalizations on the prior pages moot as relates to what " method" produces the better product.

"molding" isn't always cheaper. Tube to tube isn't necessarily more or less costly either because wrapping tubes is, in some cases, less labor intensive that the very detailed lay up process (placing different types and sizes of carbon material in the mold) required in that particular joint.

And tube joint wrapping can have a substantial effect on ride quality... Just like allowing for more carbon to be layered in a mold at the joint (and or in the tube walls) can add stiffness (and or making things "thinner" can allow for kore movement.


Just like the silly generalizations we get in to about metal versus carbon, this topic also boils down to looking at the details of how individual bikes are made...

[bicycletricycle]

dualcoque

[Kontact]

I think you're missing the point. A frame is a load bearing truss, beam or latticework that joins the working components together. A monocoque has no separate frame, but uses its outer skin as the load bearing member. A standard (non-faired) bicycle has no outer skin, so it can't be a monocoque. Just because a frame may be composed of hollow tubes does not make it a monocoque.


This is a mocoque bicycle:

http://www.varnahandcycles.com/press/press1_01.jpg http://www.varnahandcycles.com/press/press1_02.jpg



This is not:

http://rbr.info/components/com_virtuemart/shop_image/product/2008_Challenge_V_4887ac30a5eea.jpg
Mark, you just posted two pictures of frame bicycles, one of which has a fairing.

The point of monocoque is not that it is one continunous outer piece, but that the outer skin of whatever it is bears the important loads. The aero HPV still relies on an inner frame to support all the stresses, including the weight of the shell.


Like I said, monocoque is an idea, and no aircraft, car or bike has ever matched the ideal definition. The only thing that does with any regularity is blow molded sea kayak. Everything else is or has a frame, struts, reinforcements, etc.

So is nothing monocoque, or is your definition a little rigid?

[Mark McM]

Mark, you just posted two pictures of frame bicycles, one of which has a fairing.

The point of monocoque is not that it is one continunous outer piece, but that the outer skin of whatever it is bears the important loads. The aero HPV still relies on an inner frame to support all the stresses, including the weight of the shell.?

This is not true. The photos are from this web page: http://www.varnahandcycles.com/press1.htm From the web page:

"1 - The Diablo's base is a composite tub that serves as the monocoque chassis to which the body and subframe are attached."

There is an internal subframe that connects the front wheel and drivetrain components to the tub, but the main load bearing member that connects the wheels (and supports the rider's weight) is the lower half of the outer shell - a true monocoque with no separate frame supporting it.

Like I said, monocoque is an idea, and no aircraft, car or bike has ever matched the ideal definition. The only thing that does with any regularity is blow molded sea kayak. Everything else is or has a frame, struts, reinforcements, etc.

So is nothing monocoque, or is your definition a little rigid?

There is no reason that a monocoque can not have reinforcements bolstering the shell. But the important point is that the outer shell is the load bearing member, and that it does not rely on a separate (usually internal) frame. In other words, there is no distinction between the frame and outer skin - they are one and the same. So yes, there are true monocoques.

Obviously, there can aksi be many hybrid combinations of frame + monocoque, depending on the needs of the application. For example, an automobile might have a front subframe to mount the engine and front axle, with a monocoque body from the firewall on back.

You can see monocoques in the natural world as well - arthropods (including insects, arachnids and crustacean), with their exoskeletons, have no separate frames at all, and rely on the rigidity of their outer skins. This is different from mammals like us, who have a seperate skin over our frames (skeletons).

The word Monocoque literally means "single shell". When comparing the two recumbent bicycles in the photos, the second has no shell (external skin) at all, so in that respect it would not be considered a monocoque. If you want to consider only the frame of a bicycle alone, the word monocoque might be used to distinguish a standard tube-built diamond frame from a truss design such as a moulton:

http://www.moultonbicycles.co.uk/images/models/DoubleP_Med.gif

But that distinction isn't really useful for differentiating one carbon frame from another, because as it was pointed out earlier, virtually all standard tube built diamond frames would be monocoques, whether from a single mold or tube-to-tube. In fact, a TIG welded steel/aluminum/titanium frame might be even more of a monocoque than a carbon frame. Welding melds the metal tubes and fittings together into one continous piece of metal from the head tube to the rear dropouts; but even a carbon frame from a single mold is made of multiple plies of fibers at various orientations with additional plies reinforcing high stress areas, all sandwiched together in a matrix with epoxy, and with various metal fittings bonded and rivetted into and onto the composite structure. Look under the paint and the carbon frame may have more distinguishable components than TIG'ed metal frame.

[Charles M]

right...

Except most creatures with exoskeletons are not single shell either.

And carbon frame has a skin that supports parts too...



Threads pretty much dead...

[Kontact]

But that distinction isn't really useful for differentiating one carbon frame from another, because as it was pointed out earlier, virtually all standard tube built diamond frames would be monocoques, whether from a single mold or tube-to-tube. In fact, a TIG welded steel/aluminum/titanium frame might be even more of a monocoque than a carbon frame. Welding melds the metal tubes and fittings together into one continous piece of metal from the head tube to the rear dropouts; but even a carbon frame from a single mold is made of multiple plies of fibers at various orientations with additional plies reinforcing high stress areas, all sandwiched together in a matrix with epoxy, and with various metal fittings bonded and rivetted into and onto the composite structure. Look under the paint and the carbon frame may have more distinguishable components than TIG'ed metal frame.

Thanks for the rest of the story on the HPV.

I would agree that a tig welded frame is also a type of monocoque - no one ever said it didn't qualify. Kestrel adopted that term to reflect the nature of their one piece composite construction, and there really isn't any reason to argue with it. It was "more monocoque" than any other carbon bicycle, so the descriptor works just as well for it as it did for the somewhat monocoque planes it was coined for. At the time, the term served the purpose of separating methodologies and underlining the rather unique techniques Kestrel employed.

Now carbon technology has matured to a point that such distinctions are less interesting, but every time I see a Trek OCLV seam crack, I wonder. But that seems to be a good trade off for getting rid of voids in the carbon lay up.

We have a cut up Kestrel at work. The internal bladders were crude at best.

[Bob Ross]

Now carbon technology has matured to a point that such distinctions are less interesting

...at least to PezTech




:D

[Charles M]

apologies if im being too muc of a crap head, not meaning to be ;)



the distinctions are not very interesting to anyone who's seen (or understands) current production at several factories... especially the overly general (and plain wrong) "distinctions".


Monocoque always devolves into trying to define the term...

While ignoring the simple fact that a given type of build process is NO PLACE near as important as the proper execution (and associated cost) of it in making for better quality product.

[Kontact]

apologies if im being too muc of a crap head, not meaning to be ;)



the distinctions are not very interesting to anyone who's seen (or understands) current production at several factories... especially the overly general (and plain wrong) "distinctions".


Monocoque always devolves into trying to define the term...

While ignoring the simple fact that a given type of build process is NO PLACE near as important as the proper execution (and associated cost) of it in making for better quality product.
I don't see where anyone on this thread ignored that "simple fact". In fact, I think it was stated in various ways several times.

Seemed like a nice discussion about construction techniques, and a little debate about how to define a term. But I didn't see any pronouncements about the superiority of any one method. Would you care to quote something I missed?

I will own up to saying that Kestrel's original technique has been abandonded due to the tendency toward lamination voids, but I think that is both accurate and of historical interest since it essentially led directly to the OCLV, which has dominated carbon sales for 20 years.

[eddief]

don't hurt each other. i have learned a lot based on my original question. i was mostly wondering about tube to tube vs what Giant and Specialized do. perhaps my mistake for mistakingly using the controversial term monocoque.

loving my new to me 2009 Specialized S-Work Roubaix however the fuk it was created.