Is this an upgrade/downgrade/lateral move?

[vqdriver]

Pretty tempted to pull the trigger on a caad13 frameset (rim brake). I'd move everything over from my current bike which I've been steadily upgrading over the years. Currently 1st gen etap 11sp on zipp 101s. Frame is a time vx edge.
So other than changing to direct mount and maybe a bb adapter i should be able to keep all the principle pieces.

So is modern aluminum that great? Or am I destined to go back to old lugged carbon?

[R3awak3n]

It depends on what you are after.

I once had a hydro disc etap bike with carbon hoops, now have 1in steerer tube, rim brakes, cables and tubed tires and I like it much more. Some would say is a step backwards but to me it is just what I want. Easy to work on, cheap to replace parts, nothing to charge, its great

[thwart]

Originally Posted by R3awak3n

It depends on what you are after.

I once had a hydro disc etap bike with carbon hoops, now have 1in steerer tube, rim brakes, cables and tubed tires and I like it much more. Some would say is a step backwards but to me it is just what I want. Easy to work on, cheap to replace parts, nothing to charge, its great.

Some words of wisdom there.

[GonaSovereign]

That Time is fantastic. Sure, it’s got a bit less rigidity and it’s a little noticeable, but all the wonderful tube manipulation in the Cannondale is there to get it to ride more like the Time.
The Time has no tire clearance (something I care about), but is otherwise a forever bike IMO. I wouldn’t sell it until you’re completely satisfied with the Cannondale.

[flying]

Originally Posted by vqdriver

So is modern aluminum that great? Or am I destined to go back to old lugged carbon?

The only thing I would be hesitant about is the dropped seatstay design of that
caad 13

I think when most talk about the ride of recent newer aluminum frames they did not have dropped stays.
I wonder how that will affect things? Stiffer yes but in the case of aluminum is that needed?

[mstateglfr]

Originally Posted by flying

The only thing I would be hesitant about is the dropped seatstay design of that
caad 13

I think when most talk about the ride of recent newer aluminum frames they did not have dropped stays.
I wonder how that will affect things? Stiffer yes but in the case of aluminum is that needed?

Dropped seatstays allow for more comfort because the pivot point is lower, that allows for a longer 'lever'. A longer lever will flex more.

[rain dogs]

Originally Posted by vqdriver

Pretty tempted to pull the trigger on a caad13 frameset (rim brake). I'd move everything over from my current bike which I've been steadily upgrading over the years. Currently 1st gen etap 11sp on zipp 101s. Frame is a time vx edge.
So other than changing to direct mount and maybe a bb adapter i should be able to keep all the principle pieces.

So is modern aluminum that great? Or am I destined to go back to old lugged carbon?

Modern aluminum is great (I personally don't think the 13 is the bike the 12 is though) and furthermore, that Time is a great bike. They are very different bikes. I was on here talking up Aluminum bikes and believe that, but, how do I say it.... well, if you enjoy the Time for it's all-round goodness. Thet CAAD will not be better IMHO. If you feel like the Time is missing that something, the CAAD (again more the 12 than 13) MAY provide it.

Test ride the CAAD13. Easy enough.

[flying]

Originally Posted by mstateglfr

Dropped seatstays allow for more comfort because the pivot point is lower, that allows for a longer 'lever'. A longer lever will flex more.

Thanks I always thought it would be stiffer but also now remember I just saw a video yesterday with a carbon repair guy saying the same but also added some thoughts.

https://youtu.be/CXIpU92mTwI?t=1014

[carlucci1106]

Originally Posted by flying

Thanks I always thought it would be stiffer but also now remember I just saw a video yesterday with a carbon repair guy saying the same but also added some thoughts.

https://youtu.be/CXIpU92mTwI?t=1014

The rear triangle will in-effect be stiffer because it is a truss assembly, and smaller- but the seat tube will be a longer lever as the flexpoint is lower now with the dropped stay. However....

There would not be a meaningful increase in deflection from just that change. The seattube is still connected to the top tube in the same location- and the front triangle is the stiffest of the two trusses. For the seattube to flex backward, it would not only have to flex at the seatstay/seattube junction, but also at the chainstay/BB junction-- where essentially the two trusses are pivoting/folding in on themselves. Not going to happen with those massive carbon legs, and massive bottom bracket engineered for drivetrain stiffness (and not on large diameter Al, either- the CStays are ovalized in the vert. plane for pedaling power transfer).

Some commentators have gone so far as to suggest there is no conceivable difference in rear triangle flex between "standard" frames of any material, as to affect overall comfort, leaving it predominately to the lightest springs in the series (saddle, seatpost, tire, rim, axle, spokes).

Obviously, those of us who are familiar with Mr. Kirk, or dabble in full suspension mtbs, know there is a way to engineer (some) flex into the design of the stays themselves.

In single-pivot "flexpoint" FS designs (Kona Hei Hei, Giant Stance, etc.), the seatstay is brought to a very thin vertical section somewhere in the center of the tube to provide the last few mms of wheel travel. This is in lieu of a pivot point either directly in front of (on CS), or above-- on the seatstay-- the rear axle. Those designs (with CS pivot) are known as true four-bar linkage.

DK's design of Terraplane (talk me down if I'm wrong here, Dave) is similar in concept-- because the "pivot" while having no rotating bearing-equipped frame members, would essentially be at the bottom bracket, where the chainstay meets, the whole chainstay being the lever, and the "spring" being the apex of the curve in the seatstay.

On the FS design, the spring is obviously the rear shock driven by some linkage to allow upward movement of the wheel. Without the engineered flex in the stay, the design would be less progressive, and the travel limited.

In a similar vein, without the Terraplane stay, the rear of a David Kirk would not flex in the vertical plane enough to detect it with the naked eye. The Terraplane allows a very small amount of rear axle vertical movement, so as to keep the rear wheel planted and tracking over stutter bumps, much like a microcosm of FS flexpoint single pivot designs for MTBs.

Yikes. OP, ATMO, get a CAAD 13, but don't worry about frame flex. Put a wide tire on it, and a nice carbon seatpost with a lot of post showing. And don't sell the Time. Different enough bikes that I would keep them both. Doesn't seem like a fair either/or to me.
OP, I'm just getting a little burned out on the myths (*insinuations* as MarkMcM so eloquently put it) of the industry marketing wizards, and hope we can inch closer to the truth.

[old fat man]

I had a Time VX Edge. Also had a VXRS. Both were severely limiting in the tire clearance. Since selling the Times, I've put 10,000 miles on a CAAD10 with 28mm tires and other than being heavier, I don't miss the Times.

The VXRS was significantly better than the Edge though.

[vqdriver]

oof, coming back to this now. been dealing with back to back storms here and tbh cycling hasn't exactly been front of mind.

thanks for the thoughts all. to be clear, i've been mostly doing non-cycling stuff since recovering from a busted wrist. but returning now and just getting the itch back. in terms of what i'm after, my time actually clears 28 just fine so not really chasing more clearance. but more i'm just curious as to what a modern frame has to offer.
you know, the same question of what's 20 years of development actually yielded....

[Dave]

I've got one carbon frame with dropped seat stays and two without. They all ride great with 28-30mm tires and low air pressures. Eventually, people will realize that most of the ride quality is in the tires. Run high pressure tires and you're almost guaranteed to get a harsh ride.

I switched from my bike with 28mm tires and 19mm IW rims that I run at 62/65 psi to my other bike with 28mm tires on 25mm IW rims with 52/55 psi and really noticed the smoother ride. I'll have all 25mm IW in a couple of weeks. Assigning ride quality to frame material or tube configuration will become a thing of the past.

My Yoeleo bikes have beefier chain stays and main triangle but ride smoother than my Cinelli Superstar, mainly due to the tire and wheel difference.

[vqdriver]

good info. those 25mm iw rims have got be fairly beefy. do they clear calipers ok or are these disc bikes?

[Dave]

Originally Posted by vqdriver

good info. those 25mm iw rims have got be fairly beefy. do they clear calipers ok or are these disc bikes?

Disc bikes.

[oldpotatoe]

Originally Posted by Dave

I've got one carbon frame with dropped seat stays and two without. They all ride great with 28-30mm tires and low air pressures. Eventually, people will realize that most of the ride quality is in the tires. Run high pressure tires and you're almost guaranteed to get a harsh ride.

I switched from my bike with 28mm tires and 19mm IW rims that I run at 62/65 psi to my other bike with 28mm tires on 25mm IW rims with 52/55 psi and really noticed the smoother ride. I'll have all 25mm IW in a couple of weeks. Assigning ride quality to frame material or tube configuration will become a thing of the past.

My Yoeleo bikes have beefier chain stays and main triangle but ride smoother than my Cinelli Superstar, mainly due to the tire and wheel difference.

Laugh of the day. 'Eventually'??...hasn't happened yet in the decades of bike marketing. Put three bike frame makers in a room and get 5 or 6 opinions and NONE will mention 'tires'.

There's a lot of myths, marketing hype and dubious 'engineering' talk surrounding frame materials. with different camps exalting (or denouncing) the fabled smooth ride characteristics of steel and titanium, the harshness of aluminium and the stiffness of carbon fibre.

Look at just about any bike maker's AD copy and seldom, if ever, will they mention tires.