We need more discussion about materials

[Kontact]

Today at the shop we sold a $9800 stock Cervelo frameset and another $3000 in parts (instead of a custom Serotta, for instance). The bike was very light, and was a huge headache with multiple incompatibilities with the selected parts. I felt bad for the guy dropping that much money and having to be told "that won't work" so many times.

Material discussions are often posed as crude clashes between steel and ti, aluminum and carbon. But if anyone with half a brain is in on the discussion, it isn't that at all. The reason to contrast materials is not to pick favorites, but to learn about the limitations of each material and when and how their specifics overlap. To become informed buyers who ask good questions, look for positive qualities when we test ride and create a conception of value that isn't just about a gram weight.

Serotta forum exists largely to promote Serotta. Yet we don't talk about the really interesting and largely industry trend-bucking ways that Serotta manipulates materials. Colorado concept tubing was a type of oversized steel before that took off in roadie circles, and is a different solution than just bigger tubes. Serotta is credited with making the only Ti bikes that have more of a steel ride quality. And Serotta's lugged carbon frames combine an unusual customizeable production method with frame weights that suggest that the frame is designed with something more than just ride and low weight in mind. You can call that execution and design, but the key point is how each of those bikes is different than the competition's bikes - when they are made of the same materials.

Those are all selling points for Serotta, a company that should be taking sales away from Cervelo, Trek and Specialized, not the other way around.

There aren't good and bad materials, but there are good and bad ways of manipulating materials. Steel can make an awesome bike, and I would really enjoy a Sachs, Kirk or Serotta steel bike. But I do not feel any attraction at all to a workmanlike and harsh riding Surly - even though it is made of the same stuff. And it is valid to ask why one double butted steel frame with race geometry rides so different than another.


The reductionist belief that anything can make a great frame and that one shouldn't question the limitations of materials is misguided. It cloaks the very real material knowledge that builders have in mysticism, and de-values the very best frames to no better than any other three pound collection of tubing.

So I hope that maybe some discussion and promotion of materials will start to be tolerated on this forum, and it might even be possible to entertain the notion that some bikes might be made of better stuff than others.

[jr59]

What you say is right, in a vacuum. The trouble is that, life doesn't work in a vacuum. Neither does this or any other forum. Also, in this format things get lost. meanings get misunderstood, you lose voice inflection, and such.

I find myself, not posting things because of my inability to express myself in terms everyone will understand my meaning.

Feelings get hurt, egos get bruised and then nothing gets anywhere.


So yes having discussions about the merits of AL, Steel, CF, Ti, or any other combo are great. I don't think they work very well. For the most part.

[97CSI]

Have had my bottom on all of the 'major' materials (Ti, carbon, steel, Al) and mixes of same. They are all fine, I suppose. But, for me, Serotta, Trek, Specialized, Colnago, etc., all got it right the first time around and I always end up with my posterior planted back on lugged steel. I've stopped wasting money on anything else.

[gearguywb]

IMHO it is not near as much about the material as the way it is used. Unfortunately most material (frame) discussions end up with:
1. Carbon is light
2. Steel is heavy
3. Aluminum is light but cracks and rides harsh
4. Ti is fancy steel and a bit lighter

[Hanlonj]

Agree completely with Kontact. We can only learn more by engaging in objective (to the extent we can) debate about different frame materials and production methods. I have my own opinions, but they are generally sourced from subjective notions of road feel vs. any objective, measurable data.

Unfortunately, whether the product is bikes, beer, financial products, or many other goods and services, the highest quality/best value item doesn't always thrive to the extent it should because of extremely effective marketing (Cervelo, Trek, Specialized, etc) or herd mentality which is probably derived from the effective marketing.

I know its not that simple and does not apply to every situation, but for bikes, I would rather know alot more about the sport and equipment I adore than rely on Specialized (not picking on them) or sometimes my lbs which will be slightly conflicted, to tell me whats what.

[R2D2]

I guess I would start with your buyer. Why would did he purchase the Cervelo?
My guess is he watched a lot of the Tour de France? And maybe new to the sport. Marketing is a powerful tool. It takes some years of riding to decipher what one wants in a ride. And to be fair Colnago does a prety fair job of lugged carbon.

Serotta seems to have a comfotable niche market. But if they wanted to "blow it up" they would need to get out there and be seen more in the public eye.
And I'm not saying they want to get huge. Just brainstorming.

As far as just focusing on just materials they all have their strong and weak points.

[R2D2]

Duplicate

[oldpotatoe]

I guess I would start with your buyer. Why would did he purchase the Cervelo?
My guess is he watched a lot of the Tour de France? And maybe new to the sport. Marketing is a powerful tool. It takes some years of riding to decipher what one wants in a ride. And to be fair Colnago dies a prety fair job of lugged carbon.

Serotta seems to have a comfotable niche market. But if they wanted to "blow it up" they would need to get out there and be seen more in the public eye.
And I'm not saying they want to get huge. Just brainstorming.

As far as just focusing on just materials they all have their strong and weak points.

Why should Serotta be taking sales from TrekSpecializedGiant?

The bottom line is how the bike 'sings' to the rider...or not. Materials mean nothing. If the person likes the Soma or Surly, then they ought to get it. If they like how the Cervelo 'feels' and it fits them, or the SpecilizedTrekGiantCannondale.......blah, then they ought to buy it and ride it.

Bottom line is that somebody dropping serious $ needs to take an extensive test ride on each frame/material/maker. I had a gent ride a Moots, then a Serotta, bought the Serotta down the street(ProPeloton). Had another ride a Trek Madone, Specialized something, Giant a block away, Owned a Scott Addict, bought a Waterford R-33.

All the temporal design quirky-ness from whomever, whether it be marketing or actual design innovation means nothing if they ride the thing and don't like it.

Does the local Serotta or whoever local dealer have a bunch of demo bikes on the floor for extensive test rides? Like the local trekspecilizedgiant dealer? A local former Serotta dealer didn't have all the models(too many?) and just talking up this tube, that angle, this mind bending techno talk didn't help him sell Serotta.

[e-RICHIE]

Materials mean nothing.

oldwisepotatoe atmo.

ps

arrange disorder

:D :D :D
:D :D :D
:D ;) :cool:

[Spinner]

[QUOTE=Kontact]Today at the shop we sold a $9800 stock Cervelo frameset and another $3000 in parts (instead of a custom Serotta, for instance). The bike was very light, and was a huge headache with multiple incompatibilities with the selected parts. I felt bad for the guy dropping that much money and having to be told "that won't work" so many times.

So, what were the "incompatibilities ... that won't work?"

Anyone here riding a Calfee Bamboo rig? If yes, give us the skinny.

Cheers.

[1centaur]

Material means nothing...until you ride some examples of each material and start noticing similarities and differences that are not going to change no matter who's doing the building. It's like saying it's not the instrument it's what the artist does with the instrument. Though to be specific, function is often confounded with feel in these discussions, so let's always be specific. From my perspective, the function of well made bikes is very similar across materials, but the feel is not. A racer's dismissal of materials debates often is an unspoken reflection of the former.

[binxnyrwarrsoul]

And there is the where the mis-conceptions come in. Steel isn't always heavy, Carbon isn't always light, Alu isn't always harsh or fragile and Ti is Ti. It's just not as simple as that. I have all but ti, and each bike rides so differently. And, almost $14K, for a Cervelo?! Am I the only one who thinks that is preposterous?IMHO it is not near as much about the material as the way it is used. Unfortunately most material (frame) discussions end up with:
1. Carbon is light
2. Steel is heavy
3. Aluminum is light but cracks and rides harsh
4. Ti is fancy steel and a bit lighter

[93legendti]

I had 2 Serotta Fiertes at the same time: One was Steel and the other was Ti. Same size, same groupo, same wheels, same tires, etc. I liked the Ti Fierte better. To each their own.

[biker72]

And, almost $14K, for a Cervelo?! Am I the only one who thinks that is preposterous?
Nope. I think people are out of their minds spending that kind of money.
However, where I work, the people spending that much money can easily afford it.
The philosophy here seems to be carbon is in and everything else is ....OK but it's not carbon.

Best riding bike I’ve ever had: Serotta Custom Ti
Second place: Trek 2100 aluminum frame with carbon fork and seat stays.
Third place. 1991 lugged steel Waterford Paramount
Way way down the list: Trek 5200 full carbon. Very light but just didn't ride well.

[hookookadoo]

Deleted as it was off-topic to thread. Reposted as new thread.

[jr59]

I also think Old Spud is a wise one!

It isn't what the bike is made out of.
IMO; It's how it's made and most of all,
It's how it makes the rider feel. Does it do what the rider wants.
Does it sprint, climb, wind up, plane out, be comfy all day, or whatever
the rider wants. That, at least to me is the thing. It's the thing that made me write the check to Spectrum. TK built a bike that does what I wanted it to do,and I love it.

I've ridden all types of frames, except wood and bamboo, I liked the way Ti felt, and acted. So Ti is what I got.

Now on to saving $$$ for ???? maybe a Kirk, or Bedford, maybe a Dave Wages, who knows, Seeing I have no more $$$ now. I will cross that bridge when I do.

Carry on!

[Kontact]

[QUOTE=Kontact]Today at the shop we sold a $9800 stock Cervelo frameset and another $3000 in parts (instead of a custom Serotta, for instance). The bike was very light, and was a huge headache with multiple incompatibilities with the selected parts. I felt bad for the guy dropping that much money and having to be told "that won't work" so many times.

So, what were the "incompatibilities ... that won't work?"

Anyone here riding a Calfee Bamboo rig? If yes, give us the skinny.

Cheers.
The R5Ca uses a BB30 based BBright bottom bracket, so the Super Record adapter cups for the rest of the BBright line (based on PF30) won't work. So no extended parts warranty for using a complete group.

The frame was a 51, but they sent a 172.5 Rotor crank. Then they shipped a 170, but there is something funky about the chainline produced, and Cervelo suggested machining 2mm off the driveside spacers. Machining.

And, unlike their other framesets, the R5 Ca doesn't include a post and uses a slack STA to work better with zero set back posts to lower weight. But the client wants to use his even lighter Selle Italia monolink post and saddle - but it won't go far enough forward.

Oh, and there is no upper headset bearing - just a composite bushing.

The frame weighs 700 grams, and is supposed to ride just like the much, much cheaper R3. Whoopie.

[eddief]

and each rider weighs a different amount and has an idea of what feels right when he gets on the bike.

love my steel Rex, Riv, Gunnar. but i continue to be blown away by my S-Works Roubaix. still not my preferred more traditional tubes and cosmetics, but the ride is great for me...maybe more satisfying than the others mentioned.

say what you will about any bike, any material, any builder, one at a time or mass produced --- until joe blow is in the saddle and riding it with fit dialed in, only joe blow's opinion ought matter to joe blow.

unfortunately you usually have to buy em, build em, ride em for a few hundred miles to enable real decision-making. how many outside of this group have the time energy money interest to do the research?

[avalonracing]

Kontact, I have to ask, is the owner of that fancy Cervelo at all fast? Not fast according to him... over 30 miles... by himself... But a good, fast, cyclist. Not that it matters if that is what he wants, but I'm just curious.

[firerescuefin]

I think there is plenty of objective data on each of these materials, but your talking about how the material subjectively feels (whether real or perceived) to the rider and add to that, a master builder can build qualities into a bike of varying materials, the waters become muddied even more.

Those that lose all credibility in my eyes are those that discount all materials but the one they have chosen....usually citing rehashed marketing jargon or a supportive quote from a Haitian witch doctor.....and this is where the arguing usually starts.. :rolleyes:

[gone]

Anyone here riding a Calfee Bamboo rig? If yes, give us the skinny.

Cheers.

I have one and I also have a Tetra Pro (plus 4 Serottas, a Parlee Z1x and a Kirk). The Bamboo rides a lot like .....

a Calfee. My Bamboo has a carbon fork and chain stays (rumor has it the only "knock" against the all Bamboo model is a lack of stiffness in the chainstays) but the ride characteristics are remarkably similar to the Tetra Pro. It's somewhat heavier (couple of pounds) and (full disclosure) I have different wheels on them (both 32 spoke though) but I'd be willing to bet if you could ride them blindfolded on level ground you'd have a hard time telling the difference.

I guess another disclaimer is I've got tens of thousands of miles on the Tetra Pro and only a thousand or so on the Bamboo so I might feel differently about it with more miles on it but that's my early impression.

[CunegoFan]

Kontact, I have to ask, is the owner of that fancy Cervelo at all fast? Not fast according to him... over 30 miles... by himself... But a good, fast, cyclist. Not that it matters if that is what he wants, but I'm just curious.
Selle Italia claims that his Monolink saddle saves 10 to 15 seconds in a 5K time trial. It is a bargain at $640 including the post. Of course he is fast, at least two to three seconds per kilometer faster than the rest of us. :rolleyes:

[Joachim]

Kontact, I have to ask, is the owner of that fancy Cervelo at all fast? Not fast according to him... over 30 miles... by himself... But a good, fast, cyclist. Not that it matters if that is what he wants, but I'm just curious.

Popcorn time.... Back on topic. I would like to see some normal discussion on similar materials.

[merckx]

What you meant to write is, "we need more discussion about design."

I agree with the consensus, the problems that you discuss have nothing to do with material. It is about pushing the envelope with bleeding edge technology where all of the players speak a different language. I really miss the days when you could throw a Campy NR group onto a frame in 60 minutes and then be out the door lost in lactic acid bliss.

[Kontact]

Kontact, I have to ask, is the owner of that fancy Cervelo at all fast? Not fast according to him... over 30 miles... by himself... But a good, fast, cyclist. Not that it matters if that is what he wants, but I'm just curious.
He's 55 years old, rides an awful lot, and has a bank account big enough that the difference between a $7000 bike and a $13,000 bike was unimportant. He is a strong rider and this bike will be back for chain at least once a year, if not twice.

Update: We're taking back the SR and replacing it with DA.


What you meant to write is, "we need more discussion about design."

I agree with the consensus, the problems that you discuss have nothing to do with material. It is about pushing the envelope with bleeding edge technology where all of the players speak a different language. I really miss the days when you could throw a Campy NR group onto a frame in 60 minutes and then be out the door lost in lactic acid bliss.

Well, yes and no. We need more information on design, but if no one is willing to start with information about the available materials, it isn't going to be a very useful conversation.

Really, I think there is a strong vein of bicycle political correctness that oppresses every discussion. Sure, it isn't fair to Pegoretti to say that you can't make a great frame out of aluminum, but is there anyone on this board that truly believes they'd prefer to ride the finest aluminum frame over any other? Aluminum is a fine structural material, but it doesn't have much if any spring to it compared to carbon steel, Ti, fiberglass, carbon fiber and wood. If it wasn't so light it would probably be considered about as useful for bike frames as low carbon steel or ceramics. But you better watch out if you actually say something like that in the wrong company - out comes the "It's the design" police - at which point no more talk about design happens.


I would like people to be able to say "Richard Sachs will never make the world's lightest yet stiffest frame because he works in steel" without having to apologize for stating a fact and therefore appearing to "attack" a bicycling luminary. It's ridiculous.


No art critic has ever looked at a watercolor painting and criticised its lack of color intensity compared to an oil painting. Why must we politely ignore the very real differences in the materials our beloved bicycles start with? Why not pretend that there isn't just one set of qualities to judge a good bicycle with and start to love the fact that steel doesn't ride like carbon, or Ti, or aluminum and that those differences aren't good or bad - just different.

Then maybe we could have a conversation where something intelligible was said about why so many people love weird bikes like the Ottrott without resorting to flowery phrases and words like "ineffable". I'm willing to bet the answer probably does have an awful lot to do with what it is made out of.

[Bob Loblaw]

Before there was aluminum, Ti, or CF, there was steel. All frames and forks were made of steel. Columbus, Reynolds, Tange, Ishiwata. Wheels were made with steel spokes and heat treated aluminum rims. That was all there was.

Now...do you suppose back then all bikes rode the same? Felt the same? behaved the same? Of course not. Some were harsh and unforgiving. Others soft and whippy. Some were lively, some were sluggish. Some stable, some nervous. One material, lots of different bikes.

Yet for some reason, many people now think build material defines the bike...you can't have a quick, lively steel frame, or a sluggish, ill-handling carbon frame, a stiff Ti frame or a comfortable aluminum frame. I can only assume these people haven't ridden enough different bikes yet.

BL

[TAW]

Material means nothing...until you ride some examples of each material and start noticing similarities and differences that are not going to change no matter who's doing the building. It's like saying it's not the instrument it's what the artist does with the instrument. Though to be specific, function is often confounded with feel in these discussions, so let's always be specific. From my perspective, the function of well made bikes is very similar across materials, but the feel is not. A racer's dismissal of materials debates often is an unspoken reflection of the former.

I agree with this. Each material has its strengths and limitations.

[Kontact]

Before there was aluminum, Ti, or CF, there was steel. All frames and forks were made of steel. Columbus, Reynolds, Tange, Ishiwata. Wheels were made with steel spokes and heat treated aluminum rims. That was all there was.

Now...do you suppose back then all bikes rode the same? Felt the same? behaved the same? Of course not. Some were harsh and unforgiving. Others soft and whippy. Some were lively, some were sluggish. Some stable, some nervous. One material, lots of different bikes.

Yet for some reason, many people now think build material defines the bike...you can't have a quick, lively steel frame, or a sluggish, ill-handling carbon frame, a stiff Ti frame or a comfortable aluminum frame. I can only assume these people haven't ridden enough different bikes yet.

BL
And some people think Lucky Charms are part of a balanced breakfast. But if you have thoughtful, intelligent people to converse with you don't have to resort to censuring certain topics lest the yokels get ahold of it.


You know, I was told that I was almost banned along with RPS for asking Dave about tubing in the "too light" thread. Is that a better way of dealing with material questions?

[Bob Loblaw]

Most definitely; however the characteristics of the material are not the defining characteristic of a bike.

IOW, if you were to paint four high end bikes identically, set each up with the same group, wheels, saddle and tires and have a rider do the same 20 mile course on each, I doubt very many people would be able to say "This one is carbon, this one is Ti, this one is steel, this one is aluminum."

You could tap the bikes and hear the sound differences, sure, and you could get some information by the way the tubes are joined and shaped... but I mean going strictly from perceptions from the saddle, I don't think many people could accurately tell which was which. I know I couldn't.

BL

I agree with this. Each material has its strengths and limitations.

[Kontact]

Most definitely; however the characteristics of the material are not the defining characteristic of a bike.

IOW, if you were to paint four high end bikes identically, set each up with the same group, wheels, saddle and tires and have a rider do the same 20 mile course on each, I doubt very many people would be able to say "This one is carbon, this one is Ti, this one is steel, this one is aluminum."

You could tap the bikes and hear the sound differences, sure, and you could get some information by the way the tubes are joined and shaped... but I mean going strictly from perceptions from the saddle, I don't think many people could accurately tell which was which. I know I couldn't.

BL
If that's the case, then there is even less point in considering a one brand of Ti bike vs. another, or a Sachs vs. a Soma.

I hope that isn't true.

[dave thompson]

You seem to be missing a salient point that many have tried to make; we don't really care what a bike is made of, as long as it fits, as long as it rides/handles/performs as 'we' like it to and as long as it scratches as itch we have.

I've had bikes made from everything except wood and bamboo. I've bought some of them because they were made from <insert material here> and I've sold a lot of them because they didn't meet the criteria I set forth above. I've kept some made from <insert material here> because they did meet the criteria set forth above. The choice wasn't because they were made from <insert material here>.

[cmg]

so what drew the client to Cevelo R5 over the R3? or a serotta for that matter. The R5 has a aerofoil downtube until it gets to the BB then it flairs big time, front wheel is closer to the down tube and the seat tube looks more like a time trail bike than road. the R3 has the Cervelo squarval tubing. What was he looking for? Did he wind up with lots of seat post showing, big drop to the bars, seat rammed back, Bars set up on a riser stem? 9cm stem or a 10? or did he look like he fit it? everybody wins. did anybody ask if he wanted options? or was his mind made up when he came in?

[Kontact]

You seem to be missing a salient point that many have tried to make; we don't really care what a bike is made of, as long as it fits, as long as it rides/handles/performs as 'we' like it to and as long as it scratches as itch we have.

I've had bikes made from everything except wood and bamboo. I've bought some of them because they were made from <insert material here> and I've sold a lot of them because they didn't meet the criteria I set forth above. I've kept some made from <insert material here> because they did meet the criteria set forth above. The choice wasn't because they were made from <insert material here>.
With respect, Dave, I don't know which "we" you are referring to, but an awful lot of people seem to care quite a bit about what their bikes were designed to do. What would be the point of even telling someone the tubes are butted if frames are just black boxes that hold the wheels?

I am sure there are people like yourself that have absolutely no criteria when they begin looking for a frame, but I have no idea how you end up narrowing the field from the thousands of bikes available down to however many you are going to personally test ride to see if they meet your criteria.

I also think there are people who thoughtfully note the characteristics of bikes they've already ridden and sort through new bike offerings looking for machines with similar specifications to produce the qualities they like. And if they weren't able to compare the construction of one frame to another, they would find the process unnecessarily tedious or arbitrary.

[Kontact]

so what drew the client to Cevelo R5 over the R3? or a serotta for that matter. The R5 has a aerofoil downtube until it gets to the BB then it flairs big time, front wheel is closer to the down tube and the seat tube looks more like a time trail bike than road. the R3 has the Cervelo squarval tubing. What was he looking for? Did he wind up with lots of seat post showing, big drop to the bars, seat rammed back, Bars set up on a riser stem? 9cm stem or a 10? or did he look like he fit it? everybody wins. did anybody ask if he wanted options? or was his mind made up when he came in?
The R3, R5 and R5 Ca are nearly identical and are different carbon lay-ups made in similar molds. If it weren't for the paint, braze ons and weight you couldn't tell them apart. Are you thinking of the S5?

Our shop specializes in fitting, going back to beginning of the whole fit thing, so the bike was the right size with the right amount of stem, seat post, etc. The customer has been buying and servicing his bikes with us for many years, so this wasn't a rash decision on anyone's part.

[firerescuefin]

Kontact,

I think you are chasing a ghost. As I said before, materials and their ride characteristics are well known. What are you wanting to find out? This is not about defending any material or builder and I have agreed with you on many of these posts.

The ride characteristic of the bikes in your shop are well known to you, and there are many custom builders that are capable of building up bikes with varying materials that meet the needs of the customers. I could have DK build me a JKS Oversize race machine....or I could have Strong build me a ti or carbon race machine that may have similar characteristics (compliance, stiffness) but would feel slightly different due to the materials used. That's preference and that is learned from the seat of someone's pants (and is not just limited to material used)...

[Kontact]

Kontact,

I think you are chasing a ghost. As I said before, materials and their ride characteristics are well known. What are you wanting to find out? This is not about defending any material or builder and I have agreed with you on many of these posts.

The ride characteristic of the bikes in your shop are well known to you, and there are many custom builders that are capable of building up bikes with varying materials that meet the needs of the customers. I could have DK build me a JKS Oversize race machine....or I could have Strong build me a ti or carbon race machine that may have similar characteristics (compliance, stiffness) but would feel slightly different due to the material.
Things I would enjoy knowing:

How an Ottrott manages to have such a following for ride quality with its hybrid construction.
How Serotta got their Ti frames to ride more like steel, and what that means.
Why straight gauge Ti frames ride so similarly to butted, when the same is not true of steel frames.
What percentage effect small changes in carbon fiber type and orientation have on ride qualities compared to tube diameter and wall thickness.
Do shaped tubes produce actual different ride qualities for a given frame weight?
Do curved stays, like curved forks, actually absorb more impact, or is that a function of stay stiffness only?
What is the function of material ductility in frame construction, and is it the reason aluminum gets a bad rap?
How much effect does kevlar and boron have on a carbon tube?
AND
Is there is a lower weight limit to steel tubing, where the rider isn't heavy enough to load the frame, given available tubesets?


Serotta forum is unique in having a smallish, well ridden group with several builders frequenting it. That sounds like a great place to ask questions and maybe get some ideas, or even answers. But it is also a place that seems to be very intollerant of that kind of thing. I'm suggesting that it would be good for the forum and Serotta (a company with a mastery of multiple materials and combinations) to start tolerating that type of discussion. It would make for more educated forum members and be more congenial than a lot of the behavior I've observed in and around the "too light" thread. I think we are very lucky to have a place that is not knee deep in bike newbies, so I don't understand the strong emotions that come out about polite topics discussed with restraint and intelligence.

[Louis]

Frame material is just one variable out of many.

[Elefantino]

People need to experiment more with tires and tire pressure.

Makes almost as much diff. as frame material. :no:

[firerescuefin]

People need to experiment more with tires and tire pressure.

Makes almost as much diff. as frame material. :no:


I hear carbon is very compliant. Knew one guy that rode a Roubaix right over the back of a Jetta and barely even noticed it. Must have been those Zertz inserts :rolleyes:

[flydhest]

So, those questions seem much more precisely phrased than what you had been writing before. why not just ask those questions instead of being overly provocative and suggesting that there is something disingenuous about the conversation people have here about bikes? I don't think anything that was written by responses here bears much on most of those questions except the first. The Ottrott is designed to ride the way it does and the hybrid material doesn't matter much in the outcome, it is the design -- which includes the tubes. As long as one accepts that tubing is or at least can be part of design, the answer to lots of questions gets back to design.

The question about butted Ti is an interesting one that I would be curious to have a builder's view on, but I don't see why cyclists would be a valuable source for an answer.

Things I would enjoy knowing:

How an Ottrott manages to have such a following for ride quality with its hybrid construction.
How Serotta got their Ti frames to ride more like steel, and what that means.
Why straight gauge Ti frames ride so similarly to butted, when the same is not true of steel frames.
What percentage effect small changes in carbon fiber type and orientation have on ride qualities compared to tube diameter and wall thickness.
Do shaped tubes produce actual different ride qualities for a given frame weight?
Do curved stays, like curved forks, actually absorb more impact, or is that a function of stay stiffness only?
What is the function of material ductility in frame construction, and is it the reason aluminum gets a bad rap?
How much effect does kevlar and boron have on a carbon tube?
AND
Is there is a lower weight limit to steel tubing, where the rider isn't heavy enough to load the frame, given available tubesets?


Serotta forum is unique in having a smallish, well ridden group with several builders frequenting it. That sounds like a great place to ask questions and maybe get some ideas, or even answers. But it is also a place that seems to be very intollerant of that kind of thing. I'm suggesting that it would be good for the forum and Serotta (a company with a mastery of multiple materials and combinations) to start tolerating that type of discussion. It would make for more educated forum members and be more congenial than a lot of the behavior I've observed in and around the "too light" thread. I think we are very lucky to have a place that is not knee deep in bike newbies, so I don't understand the strong emotions that come out about polite topics discussed with restraint and intelligence.

[FixedNotBroken]

[QUOTE=Spinner]
The R5Ca uses a BB30 based BBright bottom bracket, so the Super Record adapter cups for the rest of the BBright line (based on PF30) won't work. So no extended parts warranty for using a complete group.

The frame was a 51, but they sent a 172.5 Rotor crank. Then they shipped a 170, but there is something funky about the chainline produced, and Cervelo suggested machining 2mm off the driveside spacers. Machining.

And, unlike their other framesets, the R5 Ca doesn't include a post and uses a slack STA to work better with zero set back posts to lower weight. But the client wants to use his even lighter Selle Italia monolink post and saddle - but it won't go far enough forward.

Oh, and there is no upper headset bearing - just a composite bushing.

The frame weighs 700 grams, and is supposed to ride just like the much, much cheaper R3. Whoopie.

You do know that there is a Campy made adapter for the BBright system right? I am running Record 11 on my R3 and it works perfectly fine. He can run the Super Record on there just call up Cervelo and have them send you the BBright Campy adapters. I went into a shop in Seattle called Speedy Reedy and they had one in stock and they ARE a Cervelo dealer..you should know about this as you told me I would have to have a custom BB adapter machined in a shop and that I would be the first person with a 2011 R-series with Campy..when I definitely was not. All of the dealers that sell Cervelo's seem to be well aware of all of this stuff yet you don't seem to know much about it or how to deal with the issues you have had. Do they not communicate well with you guys?

[Ralph]

People need to experiment more with tires and tire pressure.

Makes almost as much diff. as frame material. :no:

That's what I think also.

[Climb01742]

this is where i think these kinds of discussions get derailed:

they begin here: different materials, manipulated differently, produce different characteristics. discuss.

then they quickly go here: the material is most important thing or makes all the difference.

and they ultimately end up here: one material is 'better' or 'superior'.

statement #1 is true. statement #2 isn't. statement #3 isn't. but all three always seem to get co-mingled in threads like this.

from my little peanut gallery, i believe materials do matter. they matter in the sense that they give a builder the canvas and the paint to pursue his vision and his craft. and i think the fact that many builders wind up building in one material reflects that material 'matters'. but they matter in this way:

i write for a living. so to me, pens matter. paper matters. my mac matters. the kind of software i use matters. the kind of highlighter i use while doing research matters. my office chair matters.

could i write without any of these? sure. but i know these 'ingredients'. i know what they'll give me. i know how they perform. i feel comfortable with them. they 'disappear' so that all my little brain has to worry about are ideas. in the past i have produced good things using these ingredients, so it gives me confidence that i can do it again.

but none of these elements are 'superior' for everyone and none are the single most important thing in my creative process. but they all matter.

[93legendti]

People need to experiment more with tires and tire pressure.

Makes almost as much diff. as frame material. :no:
Yes, they can make a diff., but the "right" tire pressure and "right" tires won't turn a lousy bike into a good one. It won't turn a Concours into a La Corsa, or vice versa...

[93legendti]

this is where i think these kinds of discussions get derailed:

they begin here: different materials, manipulated differently, produce different characteristics. discuss.

then they quickly go here: the material is most important thing or makes all the difference.

and they ultimately end up here: one material is 'better' or 'superior'.

statement #1 is true. statement #2 isn't. statement #3 isn't. but all three always seem to get co-mingled in threads like this.

from my little peanut gallery, i believe materials do matter. they matter in the sense that they give a builder the canvas and the paint to pursue his vision and his craft. and i think the fact that many builders wind up building in one material reflects that material 'matters'. but they matter in this way:

i write for a living. so to me, pens matter. paper matters. my mac matters. the kind of software i use matters. the kind of highlighter i use while doing research matters. my office chair matters.

could i write without any of these? sure. but i know these 'ingredients'. i know what they'll give me. i know how they perform. i feel comfortable with them. they 'disappear' so that all my little brain has to worry about are ideas. in the past i have produced good things using these ingredients, so it gives me confidence that i can do it again.

but none of these elements are 'superior' for everyone and none are the single most important thing in my creative process. but they all matter.
+1...you nailed it.

[forrestw]

Understanding this is helped by thinking in terms of the engineering properties, specific modulus (stiffness) and specific strength, i.e. the property divided by the density. Here are the values for steel, titanium, aluminum and carbon fiber.

mat'l specific specific
modulus strength

steel .41 250
ti 1.23 280
al 3.5 220
CF 22 790

Those are 'generic' values, strength of metals will be greater or lower depending on heat treatment and cold work but the stiffness is pretty much a constant, while the strength of CF can vary greatly based on layup.

You've got a 50:1 and 3:1 difference in stiffness/strenght:weight respectively for carbon vs steel.

You can't build a carbon frame 3x lighter than steel because there are limits to how thin you can build a structure without risking buckling.

I don't know much detail about carbon fiber design but the ability to vary the orientation of the fiber to achieve optimal properties is greater than with metals (drawn tubing is has better axial than lateral properties).

What's cool to me is that not only acceptable but excellent frames can be constructed from materials with such wide variation in properties.

[happycampyer]

this is where i think these kinds of discussions get derailed:

they begin here: different materials, manipulated differently, produce different characteristics. discuss.

then they quickly go here: the material is most important thing or makes all the difference.

and they ultimately end up here: one material is 'better' or 'superior'.

statement #1 is true. statement #2 isn't. statement #3 isn't. but all three always seem to get co-mingled in threads like this.

from my little peanut gallery, i believe materials do matter. they matter in the sense that they give a builder the canvas and the paint to pursue his vision and his craft. and i think the fact that many builders wind up building in one material reflects that material 'matters'. but they matter in this way:

i write for a living. so to me, pens matter. paper matters. my mac matters. the kind of software i use matters. the kind of highlighter i use while doing research matters. my office chair matters.

could i write without any of these? sure. but i know these 'ingredients'. i know what they'll give me. i know how they perform. i feel comfortable with them. they 'disappear' so that all my little brain has to worry about are ideas. in the past i have produced good things using these ingredients, so it gives me confidence that i can do it again.

but none of these elements are 'superior' for everyone and none are the single most important thing in my creative process. but they all matter.+1

P.S. #2 pencils are better than pens. Lead has cred; ink stinks.

[Kontact]

So, those questions seem much more precisely phrased than what you had been writing before. why not just ask those questions instead of being overly provocative and suggesting that there is something disingenuous about the conversation people have here about bikes? I don't think anything that was written by responses here bears much on most of those questions except the first. The Ottrott is designed to ride the way it does and the hybrid material doesn't matter much in the outcome, it is the design -- which includes the tubes. As long as one accepts that tubing is or at least can be part of design, the answer to lots of questions gets back to design.

The question about butted Ti is an interesting one that I would be curious to have a builder's view on, but I don't see why cyclists would be a valuable source for an answer.
People do ask these questions, and they are treated with responses like this one, which appears to be typical:
"I think for Dave [Kirk] to basically lower himself to certain level on this topic is pretty low. Maybe this topic needs to go away.

To the guys who think there really smart guys, this topic is a great reason why frame builders don't come here. You may think you know everything about frame building and of course everything else but you wreck it for us normal college educated people who can learn from the people who are pros. It's not all about you."

It isn't "disingenuous", it is outright discouraged, from the comments posted by members to the PMs sent by moderators. Climb01742's post above supports this scenerio by offering a false paradigm - that Serotta forum members aren't capable of having this conversation without drawing incorrect and overly broad conclusions.

I am making two points in this thread: Material properties - especially what's available as tubing - have a great enough impact on overall design to warrant discussion. And two, let those of us interested in design have the discussion!

You do know that there is a Campy made adapter for the BBright system right? I am running Record 11 on my R3 and it works perfectly fine. He can run the Super Record on there just call up Cervelo and have them send you the BBright Campy adapters. I went into a shop in Seattle called Speedy Reedy and they had one in stock and they ARE a Cervelo dealer..you should know about this as you told me I would have to have a custom BB adapter machined in a shop and that I would be the first person with a 2011 R-series with Campy..when I definitely was not. All of the dealers that sell Cervelo's seem to be well aware of all of this stuff yet you don't seem to know much about it or how to deal with the issues you have had. Do they not communicate well with you guys?Please re-read the first line of my post that you quoted. The R5Ca does not have the same BB as the other BBright bikes, so the Campy adapters (outer diameter - PF30 46mm) won't fit in the R5 Ca's BB30 based shelll (outer diamter - 42mm).

We kind of do know what we're doing here.

[Climb01742]

Climb01742's post above supports this scenerio by offering a false paradigm - that Serotta forum members aren't capable of having this conversation without drawing incorrect and overly broad conclusions.

i didn't posit a false paradigm. you made a false conclusion. i was actually supporting your initial instinct, that, yes, materials do matter, and that, yes, a discussion of them_could_be interesting and enlightening. but it's hard, because discussions of relatives often become statements of absolutes. not just here, but in life. i'm on your side of this issue, so it's a little disconcerting to have you misread/misconstrue my point. are you reading posts or looking for disagreements?

[Kontact]

i didn't posit a false paradigm. you made a false conclusion. i was actually supporting your initial instinct, that, yes, materials do matter, and that, yes, a discussion of them_could_be interesting and enlightening. but it's hard, because discussions of relatives often become statements of absolutes. not just here, but in life. i'm on your side of this issue, so it's a little disconcerting to have you misread/misconstrue my point. are you reading posts or looking for disagreements?
No, I was using part of your post to answer the question, not disagreeing with you for pointing it out. I appreciate that you personally feel similarly. But I do disagree with "this is where I think these discussions get derailed", because I actually have rarely seen tech discussions on the this board get derailed by false conclusions. They are usually derailed by posts with no technical content at all.

I'm actually looking to have many fewer disagreements in general. I absolutely hate having to argue about the right to have of an argument, and would much prefer to read and participate in a discussion about inanimate objects without 40% of the posts dedicated to the underlying psychological motivations of the posters. I think that the belief in the scenerio you offered is so strong, that the forum acts to stop it before it happens.

The tendancy on the part of both moderators and members to conclude that anyone trying to have a back and forth discussion about how something works is an attack on frame builders or certain types of bikes is extremely frustrating. "Where are you going with this?" is not a magic phrase that is going to uncover any dark agendas. Usually, the question is just the question.

[Climb01742]

I absolutely hate having to argue about the right to have of an argument, and would much prefer to read and participate in a discussion about inanimate objects without 40% of the posts dedicated to the underlying psychological motivations of the posters.

on that, we are in violent agreement.

on other points perhaps our differing takes are related to how long we've played in our sandbox. that said, you are a welcome perspective and i hope you continue to offer it.

[e-RICHIE]

on that, we are in violent agreement.
[X] like atmo.
on other points perhaps our differing takes are related to how long we've played in our sandbox. that said, you are a welcome perspective and i hope you continue to offer it.
agreed. we're going on a decade here.
can you say pioneer status?

ps

arrange disorder

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
:) :p :D

[gearguywb]

And there is the where the mis-conceptions come in. Steel isn't always heavy, Carbon isn't always light, Alu isn't always harsh or fragile and Ti is Ti. It's just not as simple as that. I have all but ti, and each bike rides so differently. And, almost $14K, for a Cervelo?! Am I the only one who thinks that is preposterous?

That was my point, exactly.

[laupsi]

Own a steel Serotta CRL, not custom, but love it and the way it rides. simply my favorite bike, period! Don't think it is all about the material though.

have owned other manufacturers: Colnago, Vitus, Trek, Bianchi, Look, Cannondale, all w/varying materials all w/different components, angles, etc...

Just ordered an Ottrott, have never ridden this combination, have to say I simply trust Serotta and what I've read from other owners and think no matter the material, I am going to get a bike that fits, rides well, is comfortable, is durable, etc...

Cannot say that about all the other manufacturers even though I was "measured" prior to purchase on those bikes. something to be said for that too.

[1centaur]

"mat'l specific specific
modulus strength

steel .41 250
ti 1.23 280
al 3.5 220
CF 22 790"

Reminds me of my famous phrase, "metal is metal and carbon fiber isn't."

FWIW I totally get where Kontact is coming from. I think there was a long-developed tradition on this board of metal framemakers dismissing CF as it evolved. That they did so with confidence and assurance produced the usual human reaction among those sympathetic on the topic or to the poster via prior relationship: emotional concurrence. Questions of fact were viewed as questions of character. People who knew nothing technically about materials joined with people who knew much professionally about one or two materials to drown out a fair and balanced look at what materials bring to the equation. It's still almost impossible to get this board to admit that you can't build an equivalently stiff/comfortable medium frame in steel and CF within a pound of each other (which of course, "doesn't matter"). It's easy to join the chorus of boos when the superiority of metal is questioned or just explored because you'll have many companions working a well-worn groove. The CF factor generally became extended to "don't question framebuilders - they know stuff you'll never understand."

Through that prism, Kontact's questions are distorted and his motivation questioned. It becomes very difficult to phrase every question perfectly to navigate a minefield of preconceptions, especially if you have not observed the forum's behavior over the years. Add in that very few people here even have a remote chance of bringing true insight across materials (really, how many small framemakers have worked extensively across all 4 major materials?) while many can repeat the generalizations of years gone by and you a have a stew of miscommunication and annoyance.

Ultimately, while many of the same problems exist on Velocipede Salon, I think there might be better answers there, though the minefield is even denser. I also think many of Kontact's questions could only be answered by the kind of testing small makers don't do, and many of the design choices made occurred through happy chance/instinct rather than methodical incremental engineering/tests. Finally, I would guess the Ottrot got its reputation because thick carbon tubes provide a strongly different feel from metal and Ti lugs don't change that much. The engineering question would be whether an Ottrot with carbon lugs would ride much differently.

[happycampyer]

Things I would enjoy knowing:

How an Ottrott manages to have such a following for ride quality with its hybrid construction.
How Serotta got their Ti frames to ride more like steel, and what that means.
Why straight gauge Ti frames ride so similarly to butted, when the same is not true of steel frames.
What percentage effect small changes in carbon fiber type and orientation have on ride qualities compared to tube diameter and wall thickness.
Do shaped tubes produce actual different ride qualities for a given frame weight?
Do curved stays, like curved forks, actually absorb more impact, or is that a function of stay stiffness only?
What is the function of material ductility in frame construction, and is it the reason aluminum gets a bad rap?
How much effect does kevlar and boron have on a carbon tube?
AND
Is there is a lower weight limit to steel tubing, where the rider isn't heavy enough to load the frame, given available tubesets?


Serotta forum is unique in having a smallish, well ridden group with several builders frequenting it. That sounds like a great place to ask questions and maybe get some ideas, or even answers. But it is also a place that seems to be very intollerant of that kind of thing. I'm suggesting that it would be good for the forum and Serotta (a company with a mastery of multiple materials and combinations) to start tolerating that type of discussion. It would make for more educated forum members and be more congenial than a lot of the behavior I've observed in and around the "too light" thread. I think we are very lucky to have a place that is not knee deep in bike newbies, so I don't understand the strong emotions that come out about polite topics discussed with restraint and intelligence.Those are great questions, some of which have been debated here in the past if you scour the archives. The few framebuilders who still post here with any frequency (Dave Kirk, e-Richie, Dave Wages, Doug Fattic, etc.) build in steel, so you're not necessarily going to get answers to several of the questions you posed from them. Even of you add the long list of builders who no longer post here, most of them also mostly build in steel (Nick C and Tom K are exceptions that come to mind). As for the Serotta-centric questions, for better or worse, folks from the Serotta factory have historically stayed out of discussions here, except to correct misstatements of fact. Sort of like James Gatz not attending his own parties, I suppose.

Some of the questions you posed (e.g., Do curved stays, like curved forks, actually absorb more impact, or is that a function of stay stiffness only?) have assumptions that themselves have been debated here and on vsalon (i.e., whether curved forks actually absorb more impact).

The search function is your friend (well, here at least; the search function on vsalon is atrocious).

[e-RICHIE]

Those are great questions, some of which have been debated here in the past if you scour the archives. The few framebuilders who still post here with any frequency (Dave Kirk, e-Richie, Dave Wages, Doug Fattic, etc.) build in steel, so you're not necessarily going to get answers to several of the questions you posed from them. Even of you add the long list of builders who no longer post here, most of them also mostly build in steel (Nick C and Tom K are exceptions that come to mind). As for the Serotta-centric questions, for better or worse, folks from the Serotta factory have historically stayed out of discussions here, except to correct misstatements of fact. Sort of like James Gatz not attending his own parties, I suppose.

Some of the questions you posed (e.g., Do curved stays, like curved forks, actually absorb more impact, or is that a function of stay stiffness only?) have assumptions that themselves have been debated here and on vsalon (i.e., whether curved forks actually absorb more impact).

The search function is your friend (well, here at least; the search function on vsalon is atrocious).


that last bit typifies the underlying psychological motivations of the poster atmo.

ps

arrange disorder

:D :D :D
;) ;) ;)
:p :p :cool:

[Kontact]

Those are great questions, some of which have been debated here in the past if you scour the archives. The few framebuilders who still post here with any frequency (Dave Kirk, e-Richie, Dave Wages, Doug Fattic, etc.) build in steel, so you're not necessarily going to get answers to several of the questions you posed from them. Even of you add the long list of builders who no longer post here, most of them also mostly build in steel (Nick C and Tom K are exceptions that come to mind). As for the Serotta-centric questions, for better or worse, folks from the Serotta factory have historically stayed out of discussions here, except to correct misstatements of fact. Sort of like James Gatz not attending his own parties, I suppose.

Some of the questions you posed (e.g., Do curved stays, like curved forks, actually absorb more impact, or is that a function of stay stiffness only?) have assumptions that themselves have been debated here and on vsalon (i.e., whether curved forks actually absorb more impact).

The search function is your friend (well, here at least; the search function on vsalon is atrocious).
I make no assumptions about curved stays or curved forks. I was linking to the two because it is now widely held that curved forks do not absorb more and wondered if the curved stay thing might be similar.


Thank you for everyone's perspective. I've read the board for several years, but decided to join until when I into business for myself AND took a job at a Serotta dealer. So consider my perspective from 2009 or so.

I do find it interesting who hasn't contributed their thoughts to this thread, but it is the weekend.

[the night owl]

I've owned all the major food groups at one time or another and they all have their virtues. That said, the main virtue of aluminium seems to be bang for the buck. To some degree, I agree with 97CSI, I keep coming back to lugged steel. But is that because it rides best or because it appeals to the romantic in me, reminding me of the much younger man who was once worth a damn at this sport?

I believe it was Road Bike Action who had otherwise identical bicycles built from different Columbus steel tubes. Experiened riders couldn't pick out which tubes were which in a blind test leading those who wrote the article to conclude that the frame builder was probably more important than the material. The individual who wrote the article went on to say that, in retrospect, the test somewhat missed the point. The experience of owning and riding a fine bicycle goes beyond the ride and performance characteristics of the machine. For those of us who love bicycles, beyond the joy of riding them, the bicycle becomes an art form. I own five good bikes and people often ask which is my favorite. My answer has always been the same: "the one I'm on that day." The ti, carbon, 2 lugged steels and tigged steel/carbon mix are all different, but there is something to love about each of them. I ride one 3 or 4 days and then switch. I can honestly say that when the time to switch comes, I always look forward to the "new" bike even though I've ridden each of them hundreds of times.

When all is said and done, I expect that my experience is not different from most people on this site and it's why the overwhelming majority of us own more than one bike. After you've owned a few good bikes, the subtle nuanced differences in frame materials and frame builds give special cyclist meaning to that tired old phrase, "variety is the spice of life."

[FixedNotBroken]

People do ask these questions, and they are treated with responses like this one, which appears to be typical:
"I think for Dave [Kirk] to basically lower himself to certain level on this topic is pretty low. Maybe this topic needs to go away.

To the guys who think there really smart guys, this topic is a great reason why frame builders don't come here. You may think you know everything about frame building and of course everything else but you wreck it for us normal college educated people who can learn from the people who are pros. It's not all about you."

It isn't "disingenuous", it is outright discouraged, from the comments posted by members to the PMs sent by moderators. Climb01742's post above supports this scenerio by offering a false paradigm - that Serotta forum members aren't capable of having this conversation without drawing incorrect and overly broad conclusions.

I am making two points in this thread: Material properties - especially what's available as tubing - have a great enough impact on overall design to warrant discussion. And two, let those of us interested in design have the discussion!

Please re-read the first line of my post that you quoted. The R5Ca does not have the same BB as the other BBright bikes, so the Campy adapters (outer diameter - PF30 46mm) won't fit in the R5 Ca's BB30 based shelll (outer diamter - 42mm).

We kind of do know what we're doing here.

According to the conversation we had..you were saying I would have to get a special BB adapter machined. Oh well..glad you finally found out the solution as a dealer.

[Kontact]

According to the conversation we had..you were saying I would have to get a special BB adapter machined. Oh well..glad you finally found out the solution as a dealer.
Actually, yes. After digging around when we were discussing your problem we got a better answer from Cervelo about Campy adapters, which we acted on for this frame.

The problem was that this frame is different in the BB, and they didn't tell us until everything was ordered and we tried to install it. Which is typical.

Is your's done yet?

[FixedNotBroken]

Actually, yes. After digging around when we were discussing your problem we got a better answer from Cervelo about Campy adapters, which we acted on for this frame.

The problem was that this frame is different in the BB, and they didn't tell us until everything was ordered and we tried to install it. Which is typical.

Is your's done yet?

Awesome! I was hoping you guys were figure everything out. I just don't know why someone who buy the R5 Ca..kind of a waste of money in my opinion. The only difference from the R3 is the layup on the carbon and a SLIGHT weight difference. Oh well..deep pockets are deep pockets.

Yup! It's all finished. I have been riding the crap out of it. Here are the pictures, tell me what you think on the thread I posted.

http://forums.thepaceline.net/showthread.php?t=93364

I love the Rotor cranks..they are some of the best out there. I believe the best cranks to be the Dura Ace 7900..but Rotor are great. Glad he decided with the DA.

[jlwdm]

Thank you for everyone's perspective. I've read the board for several years, but decided to join until when I into business for myself AND took a job at a Serotta dealer. So consider my perspective from 2009 or so.

I do find it interesting who hasn't contributed their thoughts to this thread, but it is the weekend.

So your perspective is after most frame builders left.

I don't understand your last sentence at all. You think this thread is so important that it interesting to you that certain people have not responded to it?

Jeff

[Kontact]

So your perspective is after most frame builders left.

I don't understand your last sentence at all. You think this thread is so important that it interesting to you that certain people have not responded to it?

Jeff
I don't understand your last sentence either! ;)

I am surprised that there hasn't been any of the invective from the previous two threads. Important? Nope. But considering the number of posts on the tube patching thread, I don't think the relative importance of a thread has much to do with how many people decide to post on it. But this thread does touch on many of the same issues that caused some people to get so angry, so I am a little surprised that emotion hasn't carried over.

Please do not assume that my ego has anything to do with this, thanks.

[cat6]

Frame building is a combination of science/art and likely trial/error. Material be dammed. There are people that log more miles on bikes from Target than some of us do. The masses will buy what's there, the rest end up in places like the Serotta forum. I trust my frame builder. I don't need to study the materials. I gauge the ride by the places its taken me, the salt in my jersey, the watering of my eyes on a descent and the size of smile on my face.

You're chasing a ghost, I'd move on.

[palincss]

that last bit typifies the underlying psychological motivations of the poster atmo.


Yes, he is one of the many who have tried to use V-Salon's search engine to find things and learned to their sorrow that it's broken. That's psychologically very troubling.

[e-RICHIE]

Yes, he is one of the many who have tried to use V-Salon's search engine to find things and learned to their sorrow that it's broken. That's psychologically very troubling.

unhappycampyer atmo.

ps

arrange disorder

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :)
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :p
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :D

[Bob Ross]

I would like people to be able to say "Richard Sachs will never make the world's lightest yet stiffest frame because he works in steel" without having to apologize for stating a fact


Perhaps the reason statements such as that meet with such resistance is because it quite literally is not a "fact".

You'd probably get a lot more traction and a lot less resistance if you wanted to say "the world's lightest yet stiffest frame will never be made of steel".

But to presume that the reason Richard Sachs will (presumably) never make the world's lightest yet stiffest frame has anything to do with the material he works in completely ignores a very important component in the equation: Richard Sachs.

You make it seem as if framebuilders are mindless, desireless automatons completely at the mercy of the materials they hew. But if Richard Sachs' goal isn't to make the world's lightest yet stiffest frame, then even if his medium of choice were helium it's unlikely that he would make the world's lightest yet stiffest frame.

As a friend of mine once said, "There's no Do without Wanna."

[palincss]

Stiffness is greatly over-valued, in my opinion.

[oldpotatoe]

Actually, yes. After digging around when we were discussing your problem we got a better answer from Cervelo about Campy adapters, which we acted on for this frame.

The problem was that this frame is different in the BB, and they didn't tell us until everything was ordered and we tried to install it. Which is typical.

Is your's done yet?

Sounds like selling Cervelo is costing you money. Gotta ask, as a bike shop, why sell them if problems encountered is common, which undoubtedly cuts into the already small normal margin onna bike?

[Kontact]

Perhaps the reason statements such as that meet with such resistance is because it quite literally is not a "fact".

You'd probably get a lot more traction and a lot less resistance if you wanted to say "the world's lightest yet stiffest frame will never be made of steel".

But to presume that the reason Richard Sachs will (presumably) never make the world's lightest yet stiffest frame has anything to do with the material he works in completely ignores a very important component in the equation: Richard Sachs.

You make it seem as if framebuilders are mindless, desireless automatons completely at the mercy of the materials they hew. But if Richard Sachs' goal isn't to make the world's lightest yet stiffest frame, then even if his medium of choice were helium it's unlikely that he would make the world's lightest yet stiffest frame.

As a friend of mine once said, "There's no Do without Wanna."
Bob, it's just a hypothetical example. I'm not making it sound like framebuilders are anything, I was just using a silly example to illustrate that there is no reason for people to get upset about nothing.

But you just took my hypothetical example, assumed it was real, then assigned some weird underlying belief about framebuilders and zombies to me in an attempt to explain my motivations, which you had no basis for in anything I've ever previously posted. You're just illustrating my point!

[Climb01742]

Stiffness is greatly over-valued, in my opinion.

often said after midnight and after the 12th beer...








;)

[flydhest]

often said after midnight and after the 12th beer...








;)
potd

[Kontact]

Sounds like selling Cervelo is costing you money. Gotta ask, as a bike shop, why sell them if problems encountered is common, which undoubtedly cuts into the already small normal margin onna bike?
Actually, I'm pretty sure that we'll do fine on this $9800 frame sale. ;) And I think we do okay on all the other $2400 on up Cervelos we sell, too. More than enough to cover the occasional hiccup when we do a custom build of one, since the custom builds account for relatively few of the total we sell.

Of the various horror stories you hear with different brands, Cervelo has had almost no real frame failures for us - almost all of the warranties we do are for little things like internal cable routing problems - and Cervelo never argues with us about it. Like SRAM, they'll warranty almost anything if you ask.

Cervelo isn't perfect, but I know of no stock line that is. And Cervelo remains one of the only brands that has road and TT bikes with head tubes high enough to get the custom fits that we do on every bike we sell. They perform very well, hold up well, fit well and have a real warranty. We are one of the oldest Cervelo dealers, and while we keeping looking for a second stock line to compliment our market, we haven't found one.

[oldpotatoe]

Actually, I'm pretty sure that we'll do fine on this $9800 frame sale. ;) And I think we do okay on all the other $2400 on up Cervelos we sell, too. More than enough to cover the occasional hiccup when we do a custom build of one, since the custom builds account for relatively few of the total we sell.

Of the various horror stories you hear with different brands, Cervelo has had almost no real frame failures for us - almost all of the warranties we do are for little things like internal cable routing problems - and Cervelo never argues with us about it. Like SRAM, they'll warranty almost anything if you ask.

Cervelo isn't perfect, but I know of no stock line that is. And Cervelo remains one of the only brands that has road and TT bikes with head tubes high enough to get the custom fits that we do on every bike we sell. They perform very well, hold up well, fit well and have a real warranty. We are one of the oldest Cervelo dealers, and while we keeping looking for a second stock line to compliment our market, we haven't found one.

Well, margin is margin, as I know you know. $9800 frame still costs you in the $6000 plus or minus range.

You wrote, "The problem was that this frame is different in the BB, and they didn't tell us until everything was ordered and we tried to install it. Which is typical."

Just wondering since it's not the first time I've seen you not be real happy with Cervelo 'support'.

With 3 Cervelo dealers here in the republic, we see more than a few 'issues' with Cervelo(we don't sell 'em). Yep, 3 in 35 square miles...3 Specialized dealers also..gettin' crowded.

[Pete Serotta]

Cervelo is not a bullett proof frame :no: :no:


Yes, I am biased but life is life -- - enjoy whatever puts the smile on you and do not worry about what doesn't :D :beer: Pete

[Kontact]

Well, margin is margin, as I know you know. $9800 frame still costs you in the $6000 plus or minus range.

You wrote, "The problem was that this frame is different in the BB, and they didn't tell us until everything was ordered and we tried to install it. Which is typical."

Just wondering since it's not the first time I've seen you not be real happy with Cervelo 'support'.

With 3 Cervelo dealers here in the republic, we see more than a few 'issues' with Cervelo(we don't sell 'em). Yep, 3 in 35 square miles...3 Specialized dealers also..gettin' crowded.
Yes, it is typical of the small number of custom builds we've done on Cervelos using atypical componentry. They do well with their own stuff, but sometimes fall short when they are off the farm.

We were one of the dealers with a slew of Waterford dropout failures, too. Should we draw conclusions from that? Wasn't too good for business either. I'll bet I could post crap about every brand out there, including Serotta, but there is no reason to.

I posted about the problematic Cervelo to illustrate the point that people are spending huge amounts of money on bikes that lack the care in design of Serotta (for instance), because the public education about frame design stops at ride and weight. All our bikes are profitable and good for our clients, but some are better than others, and for reasons that the forum should start talking about.

[oldpotatoe]

Yes, it is typical of the small number of custom builds we've done on Cervelos using atypical componentry. They do well with their own stuff, but sometimes fall short when they are off the farm.

We were one of the dealers with a slew of Waterford dropout failures, too. Should we draw conclusions from that? Wasn't too good for business either. I'll bet I could post crap about every brand out there, including Serotta, but there is no reason to.

I posted about the problematic Cervelo to illustrate the point that people are spending huge amounts of money on bikes that lack the care in design of Serotta (for instance), because the public education about frame design stops at ride and weight. All our bikes are profitable and good for our clients, but some are better than others, and for reasons that the forum should start talking about.

Cuz there are only 2 things you can 'measure' in a bike shop, weight and price..

Not trying to zero in on Cervelo...you brought the problems with them up, I didn't.

[Kontact]

Cuz there are only 2 things you can 'measure' in a bike shop, weight and price..

Not trying to zero in on Cervelo...you brought the problems with them up, I didn't.
Ah, yeah. Hence the thread about having realistic conversations about materials.

As for Cervelo, your posts indicated that you didn't think they were worth carrying, as if there was a trouble free brand. What do you carry?

[Charles M]

This would be a great thread if it were titled "Problem with Cervelo Compatibility solved" and had a solid page of good info from hands on people...


Wondering why we don't have a third thread where people are getting hacked at each other over "Material" generalizations seems wierd.

[rugbysecondrow]

I have read the thread and, frankly, I haven't the foggiest notion what the point is. It reminds me of the rants former member AndrewS used to have (is that you Andrew?).

All this jibber jabber and these long winded posts remind me of the quote attributed to Mark Twain about writing a long letter because he didn't have time to write a shorter one. Somebody should put forth the effort to write a short post actually articulating the points because these all reads like numerous monologues clustered together rather than a discussion about something meaningful. It makes me dizzy trying to read it because it makes no sense.

[echelon_john]

agreed. lots of passive/aggressive tone and not a lot of substance.



I have read the thread and, frankly, I haven't the foggiest notion what the point is. It reminds me of the conversation or former member AndrewS used to have (is that you Andrew?).

All this jibber jabber and these long winded posts remind me of the quote attributed to Mark Twain about writing a long letter because he didn't have time to write a shorter one. Somebody should put forth the effort to write a short post actually articulating the points because these all reads like numerous monologues clustered together rather than a discussion about something meaningful. It makes me dizzy trying to read it because it makes no sense.

[fiamme red]

I have read the thread and, frankly, I haven't the foggiest notion what the point is. It reminds me of the rants former member AndrewS used to have (is that you Andrew?).

All this jibber jabber and these long winded posts remind me of the quote attributed to Mark Twain about writing a long letter because he didn't have time to write a shorter one. Somebody should put forth the effort to write a short post actually articulating the points because these all reads like numerous monologues clustered together rather than a discussion about something meaningful. It makes me dizzy trying to read it because it makes no sense.No one is forcing you to read the thread.

[93legendti]

when does the discussion of materials start?

[e-RICHIE]

I have read the thread and, frankly, I haven't the foggiest notion what the point is. It reminds me of the rants former member AndrewS used to have (is that you Andrew?).

All this jibber jabber and these long winded posts remind me of the quote attributed to Mark Twain about writing a long letter because he didn't have time to write a shorter one. Somebody should put forth the effort to write a short post actually articulating the points because these all reads like numerous monologues clustered together rather than a discussion about something meaningful. It makes me dizzy trying to read it because it makes no sense.

twelve words -
it's not the material so much as it is the maker atmo.

ps

arrange disorder

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
;) ;) ;)
:D :D :cool:

[mister]

^ people can't seem to understand it when you say it atmo

[e-RICHIE]

^ people can't seem to understand it when you say it atmo


should move up to the first row to hear it better atmo.

ps

arrange disorder

:cool: :cool: :cool:
:cool: :cool: :cool:
:) :) :)

[rugbysecondrow]

when does the discussion of materials start?

No one is forcing you to read the thread.

agreed. lots of passive/aggressive tone and not a lot of substance.


Agreed, I kept reading hoping that there would be some substance at some point in the thread, but, as they say, "there is no THERE, THERE".

When a discussion has a point, it is typically pretty easy to see how it is tracking towards that point, pivots around that point or at least is sprung forward from that point. I can't find those connections here.

twelve words -
it's not the material so much as it is the maker atmo.

ps

arrange disorder

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
;) ;) ;)
:D :D :cool:

Agreed and thanks.

[Aaron O]

As near as I can tell, the point of the OP (and I've only read the first few posts and the last few) was that he'd like to understand the relationship between what a builder does and the materials he uses. I think the missing thing here is that it would all depend on the rider and what he wants to do with it.

Personally, I'm not going to build a frame - so I don't need that much detail.

[Kontact]

The point of the thread was to get support for allowing discussions about materials without angry, emotional denouncements for asking frame builders questions, thread closures and threats of banning.

If someone wants to have a thread about materials, they can get the "too light for steel" thread re-opened so Dave and I (and anyone else actually interested) can finish having our polite, on topic and mutually interesting discussion about steel tubing selection.

Sorry that wasn't clear.

[oldpotatoe]

Ah, yeah. Hence the thread about having realistic conversations about materials.

As for Cervelo, your posts indicated that you didn't think they were worth carrying, as if there was a trouble free brand. What do you carry?

Not what I said, I asked if you were having such problems with them, costing you money, from your own comments on the problems with Cervelo, was it worth it to carrying them.

I dropped Calfee, Parlee, Look, Colnago, all because they were costing us $.

I sell Waterford, Gunnar, Moots.

In the 10.5 years of selling them I have had the wrong fork sent with one Gunnar(non long reach with a long reach brake frame) and one Touring fork for a road waterford. Zero problems with Moots.

I have not had to warranty any Waterford, Gunnar or Moots that I sold in those 10.5 years.

[Aaron O]

The point of the thread was to get support for allowing discussions about materials without angry, emotional denouncements for asking frame builders questions, thread closures and threats of banning.

If someone wants to have a thread about materials, they can get the "too light for steel" thread re-opened so Dave and I (and anyone else actually interested) can finish having our polite, on topic and mutually interesting discussion about steel tubing selection.

Sorry that wasn't clear.

So you're asking for support to ignore the advice of expert frame builders that have been building bicycles since before some of us were born?

[Charles M]

I have read the thread and, frankly, I haven't the foggiest notion what the point is. It reminds me of the rants former member AndrewS used to have (is that you Andrew?).



:hello:

"How come you guys won't kill each other and then yourselves based on the material questions I'm not really asking????"

[Kontact]

Not what I said, I asked if you were having such problems with them, costing you money, from your own comments on the problems with Cervelo, was it worth it to carrying them.

I dropped Calfee, Parlee, Look, Colnago, all because they were costing us $.

I sell Waterford, Gunnar, Moots.

In the 10.5 years of selling them I have had the wrong fork sent with one Gunnar(non long reach with a long reach brake frame) and one Touring fork for a road waterford. Zero problems with Moots.

I have not had to warranty any Waterford, Gunnar or Moots that I sold in those 10.5 years.
Well, we had a couple of these:
http://forums.roadbikereview.com/bikes-frames-forks/busted-237806.html
I assume they cost us something. Glad you didn't get any of them.

[Kontact]

So you're asking for support to ignore the advice of expert frame builders that have been building bicycles since before some of us were born?
Nope. Asking for support (and getting it from several posters, including David Kirk) to talk about this kind of stuff on the forum.

[JMerring]

The point of the thread was to get support for allowing discussions about materials without angry, emotional denouncements for asking frame builders questions, thread closures and threats of banning.

If someone wants to have a thread about materials, they can get the "too light for steel" thread re-opened so Dave and I (and anyone else actually interested) can finish having our polite, on topic and mutually interesting discussion about steel tubing selection.

Sorry that wasn't clear.

count me as another lost soul on this one. however, from what i can tell, the gist of the responses is that the frame material itself matters much less than all the variables that go into making the actual bike that you ride. and since this thread has gone on for 7 pages, and is one of many such threads that have come before it, i'd say you have all the support you need to have the discussion you want, though you may not be getting the conclusions you'd like.

[AngryScientist]

count me as another lost soul on this one. however, from what i can tell, the gist of the responses is that the frame material itself matters much less than all the variables that go into making the actual bike that you ride. and since this thread has gone on for 7 pages, and is one of many such threads that have come before it, i'd say you have all the support you need to have the discussion you want, though you may not be getting the conclusions you'd like.

i agree with this.

i will add that, generally, if you want something specific addressed, it is best to ask a pointed, specific question, rather than throw out generalities like "we need more material discussion" - because that doesnt really mean anything IMO

[Bob Ross]

Bob, it's just a hypothetical example. I'm not making it sound like framebuilders are anything, I was just using a silly example to illustrate that there is no reason for people to get upset about nothing.

But you just took my hypothetical example, assumed it was real, then assigned some weird underlying belief about framebuilders and zombies to me in an attempt to explain my motivations, which you had no basis for in anything I've ever previously posted. You're just illustrating my point!


Let me get this straight: when people make generalizations you're unhappy because they're not asking specific/pointed questions, and when people get specific "it's just a hypothetical example". Gotcha.

You may continue...

[oldpotatoe]

Well, we had a couple of these:
http://forums.roadbikereview.com/bikes-frames-forks/busted-237806.html
I assume they cost us something. Glad you didn't get any of them.

Never sold any 953 frames altho I had one for a while.

Not saying Watertford, Moots, Serotta(gotta include them), Lynskey, Merlin, IF, putnameofframehere has zero issues but when the issues get big or numerous, cost $, gotta decide. I had to warranty way to many Calfees. Altho Calfee paid for the $ to ship back to me, the customer paid to get it there and I couldn't ask the customer for the $200 to strip and rebuild....and Calfee sure wasn't going to pony up that $....so in spite of numerous conversations with Craig, nothing improved..adios Calfee.

In spite of what some are implying, NOT trying to single out Cervelo, but a 'discussion' between bike shop guys...probably OT from the subject of the original post.

[Kontact]

Let me get this straight: when people make generalizations you're unhappy because they're not asking specific/pointed questions, and when people get specific "it's just a hypothetical example". Gotcha.

You may continue...
It was always hypothetical (and facetious) example. Was that really unclear?


Everyone, I can accept that there are plenty of unanswerable questions one can ask about bicycle design. But there are plenty of ones that do have answers, and if you can't ask you'll never know the difference between the two.

[TAW]

So you're asking for support to ignore the advice of expert frame builders that have been building bicycles since before some of us were born?

I'll throw in some support for Kontact's attempt to lead a rational discussion of materials. The problem is that people get sensitive when it appears that you may be knocking their material of choice. As a bike shop mechanic, I've seen a variety of bikes, from high-end carbon to high end steel (of some of the most revered on this forum) which have flaws in workmanship. I don't conclude that any of them are "junk." I don't believe that any one builder has all the answers, or that a large company like Specialized (for example) is "evil" because they are who they are. Neither should they be worshiped as gods. Like most of us, I've owned some very fine bikes made from nearly every material. It's my opinion that materials DO matter and there is a reason why certain builders prefer to stick with a certain material. They all have characteristics, and if you're looking for a bike to fit a certain purpose, there are materials that fit the bill better than others. :)

[e-RICHIE]

Everyone, I can accept that there are plenty of unanswerable questions one can ask about bicycle design. But there are plenty of ones that do have answers, and if you can't ask you'll never know the difference between the two.
we should have a thread dedicated to just Kontact points atmo.

ps

arrange disorder

:) :) :)
:) :) :)
:) :) :D

[Kontact]

we should have a thread dedicated to just Kontact points atmo.

ps

arrange disorder

:) :) :)
:) :) :)
:) :) :D
We could, but I'm not allowed to talk about my products on the forum. ;)

[rugbysecondrow]

I'll throw in some support for Kontact's attempt to lead a rational discussion of materials. The problem is that people get sensitive when it appears that you may be knocking their material of choice. As a bike shop mechanic, I've seen a variety of bikes, from high-end carbon to high end steel (of some of the most revered on this forum) which have flaws in workmanship. I don't conclude that any of them are "junk." I don't believe that any one builder has all the answers, or that a large company like Specialized (for example) is "evil" because they are who they are. Neither should they be worshiped as gods. Like most of us, I've owned some very fine bikes made from nearly every material. It's my opinion that materials DO matter and there is a reason why certain builders prefer to stick with a certain material. They all have characteristics, and if you're looking for a bike to fit a certain purpose, there are materials that fit the bill better than others. :)
Leading a discussion about materials is not a premise or even a point. It is like leading a discussion about water.

What is the point you are agreeing with? If it is that materials matter but builder matters more, that makes sense, but we deserve a point after seven pages. If the point that you are agreeing with is just that Kontact has a point about leading this discussion, I disagree. The discussion might be valid, be Kontact is unable to lead this discussion (as this thread proves).

Something about enough rope to hang ones self applies here.

[dave thompson]

<beating>dead horse</beating>

[e-RICHIE]

Something about enough rope to hang ones self applies here.


it's like that line from annie hall atmo -
sylvia plath - interesting poetess whose tragic suicide was misinterpreted as romantic by the college girl mentality.
i mean, what really is as it seems?

ps

arrange disorder

:D :D :D
;) ;) ;)
:p :p :cool:

[David Kirk]

twelve words -
it's not the material so much as it is the maker atmo.

ps

arrange disorder

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
;) ;) ;)
:D :D :cool:

My take would be slightly different -

"It's not the material so much as what the builder does with it."

Or as an old friend once said - there is no such thing as a bad material only a bad application.

dave

[e-RICHIE]

My take would be slightly different -

"It's not the material so much as what the builder does with it."

Or as an old friend once said - there is no such thing as a bad material only a bad application.

dave


i had a 12 word word count to adhere to atmo...

ps

arrange disorder

:) :) :)
:) :) :)
:D :) :)

[Aaron O]

I'll throw in some support for Kontact's attempt to lead a rational discussion of materials. The problem is that people get sensitive when it appears that you may be knocking their material of choice. As a bike shop mechanic, I've seen a variety of bikes, from high-end carbon to high end steel (of some of the most revered on this forum) which have flaws in workmanship. I don't conclude that any of them are "junk." I don't believe that any one builder has all the answers, or that a large company like Specialized (for example) is "evil" because they are who they are. Neither should they be worshiped as gods. Like most of us, I've owned some very fine bikes made from nearly every material. It's my opinion that materials DO matter and there is a reason why certain builders prefer to stick with a certain material. They all have characteristics, and if you're looking for a bike to fit a certain purpose, there are materials that fit the bill better than others. :)

I don't see this as an attempt to have a rational discussion of materials. I'm not sure what it is (admittedly, I didn't read all 9 pages of this).

I can tell you what my builder did when making me a custom; he asked for my weight, about 100 measurements and what I wanted. He asked what ride qualities I like and how I intend to use the bike. He told me what material he intended to use (MAX) and he built the bike.

I'm thrilled with the result.

Were I buying a bike and was looking at various materials and wondering what would work for me, I'd try as many bikes as possible, noting what I liked and didn't like about each, and make a decision based on that. The nice thing about getting a custom is that you leave that decision to someone who knows more than you! If I were to get another custom, it would be ti...because I like not worrying about rust and paint chips. I'd trust a good ti builder to make an appropriate bike.

[Kontact]

Leading a discussion about materials is not a premise or even a point. It is like leading a discussion about water.

What is the point you are agreeing with? If it is that materials matter but builder matters more, that makes sense, but we deserve a point after seven pages. If the point that you are agreeing with is just that Kontact has a point about leading this discussion, I disagree. The discussion might be valid, be Kontact is unable to lead this discussion (as this thread proves).

Something about enough rope to hang ones self applies here.
I never said I wanted to lead any discussion.

You are reading motivations that aren't there. Which IS what this thread is about.

[eddief]

or is it bikes = religion?

my holy trinity right here:

http://www.vecchios.com/who.html

see you at services there next sunday.

[mister]

nvm

[dave thompson]

My take would be slightly different -

"It's not the material so much as what the builder does with it."

Or as an old friend once said - there is no such thing as a bad material only a bad application.

dave
^This!

[1centaur]

Within a material, hard to disagree with e-Richie. Across materials, the proportion blurs considerably when it comes to what I care about. If e-Richie made a CF bike (hold on, something porcine just fluttered by my window) he thought was good (and I could get it painted my way), I'd get in the (new) queue because I think he brings something special to the material limitation: a lot of design and fabrication obsession. I believe obsession makes a big difference within a possibility set.

But I don't think this thread is about materials, I think it's about the engineering realities of frame making, divorced from the cult of personality. That nobody is both qualified and willing to answer the questions while many are willing to push in an unpleasant direction says all we need about whether these questions can be asked in this forum with reasonable expectations of dispassionate answers: no.

[TAW]

I don't see this as an attempt to have a rational discussion of materials. I'm not sure what it is (admittedly, I didn't read all 9 pages of this).

I can tell you what my builder did when making me a custom; he asked for my weight, about 100 measurements and what I wanted. He asked what ride qualities I like and how I intend to use the bike. He told me what material he intended to use (MAX) and he built the bike.

I'm thrilled with the result.

Were I buying a bike and was looking at various materials and wondering what would work for me, I'd try as many bikes as possible, noting what I liked and didn't like about each, and make a decision based on that. The nice thing about getting a custom is that you leave that decision to someone who knows more than you! If I were to get another custom, it would be ti...because I like not worrying about rust and paint chips. I'd trust a good ti builder to make an appropriate bike.

If I'm not mistaken, the point of this thread is not to discuss materials per se, but to ask the question, "Can we have a discussion on materials without flaming or personal attacks?" It is related to the previous thread in which Kontact and David Kirk were having what seemed to me to be a civil discussion on materials, when some other posts came in questioning Kontact's motives and implying that he was disrespecting David Kirk by asking some questions.

Seeing that none of the builders who post on this forum, all of whom no doubt know more than most of us about frame building, will have different design/material philosophies, I think it would be interesting to know why each of them do what they do. I have no doubt that the engineers/designers of frames for Trek/Specialized/Giant know more than most of us do, but we ought to be able to discuss their philosophies on materials and design, and often do without attacks.

As far as your frame is concerned, you did it the way it ought to be done, and I think all of us think that you got a great frame that you will enjoy for a long time.

[David Kirk]

But I don't think this thread is about materials, I think it's about the engineering realities of frame making, divorced from the cult of personality. That nobody is both qualified and willing to answer the questions while many are willing to push in an unpleasant direction says all we need about whether these questions can be asked in this forum with reasonable expectations of dispassionate answers: no.

Not that I'm the all seeing, all knowing expert on these matters but I would be happy to do my best of answering a question about materials but so far I can't tell what the question really is. Seriously - what is the question at hand?

dave

[1centaur]

You have been by far the closest, Dave. Kontact posted a lot of specific questions earlier in the thread that are interesting, but that was just to prove he's not here to stir up trouble as his original point was it would be nice to be able to ask questions about materials, for example, without his motivations being attacked.

[rugbysecondrow]

I never said I wanted to lead any discussion.

You are reading motivations that aren't there. Which IS what this thread is about.


Huh? This is officially circular.


Not that I'm the all seeing, all knowing expert on these matters but I would be happy to do my best of answering a question about materials but so far I can't tell what the question really is. Seriously - what is the question at hand?

dave

I can be dense at times and you are often more reasonable than I so I am glad it is not just me.

[Climb01742]

(hold on, something porcine just fluttered by my window)

for me, that line just made the thread worthwhile.

[Charles M]

por·cine/ˈpôrˌsīn/
Adjective: Of, affecting, or resembling a pig or pigs.

Not ashamed I had to look... :beer:

[FixedNotBroken]

por·cine/ˈpôrˌsīn/
Adjective: Of, affecting, or resembling a pig or pigs.

Not ashamed I had to look... :beer:

Hahah.

[Kontact]

Huh? This is officially circular.




I can be dense at times and you are often more reasonable than I so I am glad it is not just me.
Your answer is summerized in here:
If I'm not mistaken, the point of this thread is not to discuss materials per se, but to ask the question, "Can we have a discussion on materials without flaming or personal attacks?"

And also here:
Kontact posted a lot of specific questions earlier in the thread that are interesting, but that was just to prove he's not here to stir up trouble as his original point was it would be nice to be able to ask questions about materials, for example, without his motivations being attacked.

Or, in your case, "Can we have discussion about the possibility of having a discussion on materials without flaming or personal attacks?"

You're engaging in personal attacks on me. So I'll put you down as a "no". Thanks for posting.

[rugbysecondrow]

Not personal, this is just a dumb and pointless thread with no benefit. That is not an attack, but an attempt to illustrate that if you had a point, it has missed the mark. Start over, be consice, no diversions regarding Cervelo that do nothing but confuse your "point". Just ask the question. You have an audience, don't squander it on BULL????.

[Bruce K]

If not, feel free to start a new thread that sticks to whatever the original idea is.

BK