HOT: Active* forum members generally gain 5% discount at starbike.com store!
Weight Weenies
* FAQ    * Search    * Trending Topics
* Login   * Register
HOME Listings Blog NEW Articles FAQ Contact About




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 231 posts ] 
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 16  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Cervélo 2015 lineup
PostPosted: Mon Aug 18, 2014 1:39 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 10:15 pm
Posts: 168
Frankly I think Cervelos are one of the worst bikes out there. More hype than anything else. So much of the geometry stays the same across frame sizes which tells me the company is looking to save every penny they can in manufacturing, Just compare rear chain stay length and seat tube angle, the whole rear triangle is built to work across every size. Additionally my understanding is the relatively short rear chain stays causes issues with the shifting. And while Cervelo does honor their warranties for frame defects their frames historically have failed at higher than industry rates. Now contrast that with a Colnago where the attempt is made to choose appropriate geometry specific to the frame size or engineers their frames to hold up.

_________________
Colnago C-59 Italia PR99 colour schema
Shimano Ultegra 6800
Shimano Dura Ace C-24

Trek 5200
Shimano Ultegra 6500
Mavic krysium Elite


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Cervélo 2015 lineup
PostPosted: Mon Aug 18, 2014 2:01 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 2:19 pm
Posts: 651
Short rear chain stays= less drivetrain loss/ shorter wheelbase/ more responsive handling/ better traction when climbing the insanely steep stuff.

I've never had issue shifting campy super record on my 2011 R5.

Until this year, Colnago has never made a production frame lighter than 1000 grams, my 2011 R5 weighed 835.

When you are locked into prehistoric construction techniques like colnago, (lugged carbon, aluminum dropouts, etc) you can claim durability but let's be real they haven't pushed the envelope on technological advances in a while. (I own a Colnago that I prefer to ride over my Cervelo, but on race day it stays at home)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Cervélo 2015 lineup
Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2014 2:01 am 


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Cervélo 2015 lineup
PostPosted: Mon Aug 18, 2014 3:37 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 10:56 pm
Posts: 664
Location: Canada
fromtrektocolnago wrote:
Frankly I think Cervelos are one of the worst bikes out there. More hype than anything else. So much of the geometry stays the same across frame sizes which tells me the company is looking to save every penny they can in manufacturing, Just compare rear chain stay length and seat tube angle, the whole rear triangle is built to work across every size. Additionally my understanding is the relatively short rear chain stays causes issues with the shifting. And while Cervelo does honor their warranties for frame defects their frames historically have failed at higher than industry rates. Now contrast that with a Colnago where the attempt is made to choose appropriate geometry specific to the frame size or engineers their frames to hold up.

You must have a source or reference for all these "facts" you are stating. Sure would be good to see them.......or else its all bs...........

_________________
My RCA


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Cervélo 2015 lineup
PostPosted: Mon Aug 18, 2014 9:26 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 8:51 pm
Posts: 984
Location: France
Regarding chain stay / rear-center length. In the pre 2011 Cervélo bikes the chainstay was 395mm, now it is 405mm across the board. This is exactly the same as Specialized, Cannondale and many other manufacturers, with the exception that a few lengthen the chainstay to 408-410mm for the very largest sizes ( 61-63cm ).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Cervélo 2015 lineup
PostPosted: Mon Aug 18, 2014 9:27 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:52 am
Posts: 604
fromtrektocolnago wrote:
Just compare rear chain stay length and seat tube angle, the whole rear triangle is built to work across every size. Additionally my understanding is the relatively short rear chain stays causes issues with the shifting.


Cervelos used to have short chainstays of 399mm.....back in the 2006-2010. Yes, it was too short and it caused some troubles when running big ring with larger cogs (too much crossing)

Anyway, from 2011 all Cervelos have 405mm chainstays, which is fully acc. to Campagnolo requirments (I asume all other brands say min 405mm chainstays).
And I confirm that I have never had any issue with the combination big ring + large cogs on my R5. The situation got significantly better when I switched from R3.
So, the lenght of chainstays is really not a problem on Cervelos.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Cervélo 2015 lineup
PostPosted: Mon Aug 18, 2014 12:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 11:43 pm
Posts: 579
fromtrektocolnago wrote:
Frankly I think Cervelos are one of the worst bikes out there. More hype than anything else. So much of the geometry stays the same across frame sizes which tells me the company is looking to save every penny they can in manufacturing, Just compare rear chain stay length and seat tube angle, the whole rear triangle is built to work across every size.


Uh, Ok dude. So tell us, why should chainstay length change across different sizes? Why would that be better?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Cervélo 2015 lineup
PostPosted: Mon Aug 18, 2014 11:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 10:15 pm
Posts: 168
wingguy wrote:
fromtrektocolnago wrote:
Frankly I think Cervelos are one of the worst bikes out there. More hype than anything else. So much of the geometry stays the same across frame sizes which tells me the company is looking to save every penny they can in manufacturing, Just compare rear chain stay length and seat tube angle, the whole rear triangle is built to work across every size.


Uh, Ok dude. So tell us, why should chainstay length change across different sizes? Why would that be better?


Well, I'll include one person's take on the subject.

http://handmadebikes.blogspot.com/2010/ ... esign.html

_________________
Colnago C-59 Italia PR99 colour schema
Shimano Ultegra 6800
Shimano Dura Ace C-24

Trek 5200
Shimano Ultegra 6500
Mavic krysium Elite


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Cervélo 2015 lineup
PostPosted: Mon Aug 18, 2014 11:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2010 11:54 am
Posts: 55
Location: Brisbane, AU
Furthermore, you don't save "pennies in manufacturing" by keeping the geometry of the rear triangle the same. That's not how it works.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Cervélo 2015 lineup
PostPosted: Tue Aug 19, 2014 12:07 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 10:15 pm
Posts: 168
Great comercial, but the builder does save money by specing and building one version of the rear triangle.

_________________
Colnago C-59 Italia PR99 colour schema
Shimano Ultegra 6800
Shimano Dura Ace C-24

Trek 5200
Shimano Ultegra 6500
Mavic krysium Elite


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Cervélo 2015 lineup
PostPosted: Tue Aug 19, 2014 1:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 5:39 pm
Posts: 69
cervelo.com wrote:
Geometry And Fit
...
...So, how do you know if a model truly gets smaller in its smaller sizes? We need to make sure that the head tube continues to move rearward as the frame sizes become smaller. In other words, look for frame reach, not top tube length. The seat tube angle may or may not change, that doesn't matter as much.

You can see Cervélo’s approach below — we make sure the headtube moves closer to the rider as sizes get smaller.

Image
...
Explore more


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Cervélo 2015 lineup
PostPosted: Tue Aug 19, 2014 8:22 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:52 am
Posts: 604
fromtrektocolnago wrote:
Great comercial, but the builder does save money by specing and building one version of the rear triangle.


The rear triangle is not same for all sizes! Only chainstays are.....the seatstays are changing in lenght, shaping and angle to the chainstays......it means even dropouts must be size specific.
You can see on the picture above. :welcome:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Cervélo 2015 lineup
PostPosted: Tue Aug 19, 2014 8:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 11:43 pm
Posts: 579
fromtrektocolnago wrote:
Well, I'll include one person's take on the subject.

http://handmadebikes.blogspot.com/2010/ ... esign.html


OK, so he specifically calls out Colnago's rear end geometry as being bad, makes a reasonable point about rear wheel impacts (though I doubt anyone would accuse an R series or new S3 of being uncomfortable) but I'm not convinced about any handling claims.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Cervélo 2015 lineup
PostPosted: Tue Aug 19, 2014 8:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 1:57 pm
Posts: 7375
Location: San Francisco, CA
Chainstays until the 1980's were much longer. See Jan Heine's "The Competition Bicycle" for some good geometry numbers. And don't say it's because the roads are so much better -- you've not ridden here (SF Bay area).

_________________
http://djconnel.blogspot.com/
Fuji SL/1
\


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Cervélo 2015 lineup
PostPosted: Wed Aug 20, 2014 2:50 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2014 8:40 pm
Posts: 18
TheRoadrunner wrote:
I am not sure what you are referring to here. If the saddle is in the same position relative to the bottom bracket (ie same height above and same distance behind/possibly in front of the BB) seat tube angle will not affect the saddle to bars distance.

Now if you are saying if a frame will not allow you to achieve the same saddle position relative to the BB, then yes that would be true. But that would be terrible fitting methodology. The height of the saddle and position behind/in front of the BB should be derived from the rider's physiology, preference, type of riding. It should not be determined by the frame itself. If you can not get the saddle to the correct position, you need a new saddle, new seat post, or a new frame that would work. Using the frame to determine what the saddle position should be is backwards.

For your example, why would the rider change the saddle position when moving from the cannondale to the Cervelo? If the saddle position remains the same, then stack and reach is totally usable. If I could not get the saddle in the correct position, I would not buy the Cervelo.


There's no well-justified rule to determine saddle position. The best known is KOPS (knee over pedal spindle), but it is not rooted in any real evidence and it's mostly tradition. Saddle offset is one of the least important fit parameters. Primary parameters are saddle-to-bars distance and drop.

Once you have saddle to bars vector dialed in, you can use your own preferences to move the saddle forward and extend the stem, or vice versa. All it does is shift the center of gravity slightly forward or back, change fore-aft weight distribution, and change the hip angle. High hip angle makes for comfortable pedaling with less muscle strain, but moving too far forward can upset the weight distribution and make it difficult to pedal out of saddle.

Quote:
Also, I would be careful on using ETT to compare different brands. Because some brands measure ETT differently, so effective comparison may not be possible.


The most straightforward definition of ETT is center-to-center, and it's mathematically equal to reach + stack*tan(90-phi) where phi is seat tube angle. I've checked this for a couple of different brands and results agree with published figures to within 1mm.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Cervélo 2015 lineup
Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2014 2:50 am 


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Cervélo 2015 lineup
PostPosted: Wed Aug 20, 2014 4:35 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2014 6:13 am
Posts: 59
nameless wrote:
There's no well-justified rule to determine saddle position. The best known is KOPS (knee over pedal spindle), but it is not rooted in any real evidence and it's mostly tradition. Saddle offset is one of the least important fit parameters. Primary parameters are saddle-to-bars distance and drop.

Once you have saddle to bars vector dialed in, you can use your own preferences to move the saddle forward and extend the stem, or vice versa. All it does is shift the center of gravity slightly forward or back, change fore-aft weight distribution, and change the hip angle. High hip angle makes for comfortable pedaling with less muscle strain, but moving too far forward can upset the weight distribution and make it difficult to pedal out of saddle.


I don't think the fact that there's no "rule" for it makes it less important. I would consider setback actually to be more important than reach or drop - reach and drop are primarily about making comfortable the parts of your body that do NOT move - back, neck, arms, etc. - whereas saddle height and setback are about the parts of your body that matter...
Obviously hip angle, very important, is affected by all of these parameters... But I would never encourage someone to use setback as a way to correct reach, as a simple 1cm movement in setback can have profound impact on knees, legs - things which are the only part that makes your bike go, subject to 90+ rpm for hours on end..

Setback may be less well-understood, and harder to "fit" to someone without feedback, but it's a big difference maker, don't discount that... Cervelo's geometry is excellent for normalising stem lengths and stack heights, but the laidback seat-tube angle is a fairly terrible feature that means very often bikes are needing 0 setback posts... Just something to consider, while this isn't necessarily a "defect," it's a curious consequence of their decision to keep the seat-tube angle the same on nearly all sizes.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 231 posts ] 
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 16  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: coppercook62, Google [Bot] and 28 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

   Similar Topics   Author   Replies   Views   Last post 
There are no new unread posts for this topic. 2015 New Tarmac S-Works or 2015 Cervelo R5?

in Road

tiquitain

11

2474

Mon Oct 06, 2014 9:42 am

BCSS View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Pricing on 2015 Cervelo RCA

in Road

audiophilitis

12

1518

Thu Nov 06, 2014 10:30 am

Cervelolite View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. New WW brakes - 2015 eeBrakes Vs 2015 Ciamillo micro

[ Go to page: 1, 2 ]

in Road

snowdevlin

28

2625

Thu Dec 11, 2014 12:29 am

CAMSHAFT View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. 2015 Di2

in Road

JourneyMan

8

2652

Sun Jun 08, 2014 10:02 pm

wingguy View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. 2015 EVO any news?

in Road

ParisCarbon

14

3353

Sun Aug 17, 2014 10:17 am

superdx View the latest post


It is currently Sat Dec 27, 2014 12:38 am

All times are UTC + 1 hour




Advertising   –  FAQ   –  Contact   –  Convert   –  About

© Weight Weenies 2000-2013
hosted by starbike.com


How to get rid of these ads? Just register!


Powered by phpBB