Leading makers of 'production' carbon fiber road frames

Back by popular demand, the general all-things Road forum!

Moderator: robbosmans

goodboyr
Posts: 1483
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 10:56 pm
Location: Canada

by goodboyr

Let's see, I've got two Cervelo's and two Treks (RCA and original R3 for Cervelo, OCLV 5200 and 5000 from Trek). Reasons for buying these in order of importance:

1. Technical advancement : In all cases the bikes represented what I would consider technical breakthroughs. For their time, the Trek OCLV frames were the first low weight, massed produced full carbon frames. They were ahead of their time. For the Cervelos, the original R3 was the lightest bike of its time and the first to use the thin seat stays for comfort. As well it was stiffest. My new RCA has a number of unique technical advances detailed well in the Cervelo white paper.

2. Performance and fit - All these bikes ride great and fit great and that makes me happy when I ride!

3. Exclusivity - At the time I got each of these, they were fairly unique and rare.

4. Looks - Some better than others. One trek with the Saturn racing team colours, one with the clearcoat over carbon. The original R3 CSC colour scheme and the RCA matte black. All nice in their time.

Never experienced any of the failures some have talked about here. They all have lots of miles on them, lots of climbs and descents, lots of rough roads, lots of indoor trainer time. No fork failures, no BB failures, no cracks, no separations.

by Weenie


Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com



justkeepedaling
Posts: 1707
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:14 am

by justkeepedaling

fromtrektocolnago wrote:I don't think the issue is the wind-tunnel tests but rather if the pursuit of being the lightest and most aero is resulting in more frame failures. Numerous responders have brought up forks, bottom brackets and seat stay issues. The independent testing is not looking at this.


The types of failures you're mentioning all pretty much ended in 2011 with the r series redesign. As far as bb creaks and what not, that's a cost of the modem press fit standards. Manufacturers like Cannondale are also dealing with that. I haven't heard of a recent cervelo fork problem in a long time since the wolf SL. And by that note, both specialized and trek had fork recalls too, and more recently than cervelo's. Haven't heard seatstay problems other than people dropping their bikes (not anytime recently anyway)

User avatar
ultimobici
in the industry
Posts: 4456
Joined: Sun Nov 21, 2004 2:45 pm
Location: Trento, Italia
Contact:

by ultimobici

goodboyr wrote:Let's see, I've got two Cervelo's and two Treks (RCA and original R3 for Cervelo, OCLV 5200 and 5000 from Trek). Reasons for buying these in order of importance:

1. Technical advancement : In all cases the bikes represented what I would consider technical breakthroughs. For their time, the Trek OCLV frames were the first low weight, massed produced full carbon frames. They were ahead of their time. For the Cervelos, the original R3 was the lightest bike of its time and the first to use the thin seat stays for comfort. As well it was stiffest. My new RCA has a number of unique technical advances detailed well in the Cervelo white paper.

2. Performance and fit - All these bikes ride great and fit great and that makes me happy when I ride!

3. Exclusivity - At the time I got each of these, they were fairly unique and rare.

4. Looks - Some better than others. One trek with the Saturn racing team colours, one with the clearcoat over carbon. The original R3 CSC colour scheme and the RCA matte black. All nice in their time.

Never experienced any of the failures some have talked about here. They all have lots of miles on them, lots of climbs and descents, lots of rough roads, lots of indoor trainer time. No fork failures, no BB failures, no cracks, no separations.

You've simply been lucky. Having seen with my own eyes the volume of warrantied frames in the UK alone I was staggered how they are in business. But then after the massive price drop a year or two ago it all became clear.

fromtrektocolnago
Posts: 1145
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 10:15 pm

by fromtrektocolnago

That price drop coincides with their purchase by PON who wanted to increase volumes and was attempting to cut costs by combining the sales and back office support across their brands. It's also the case that more bike companies are targeting aero in their marketing these days. I do agree that the account of the two cervelos not breaking is simply anecdotal or serves as pure testimonial. It doesn't really prove or disprove the q.c. issues.

I think Parlee with their Z5 has gone after some of Cervelos business. Trek has been designing its Madone with Cervelo in mind adding aero features.

For me though nothing tops a bike that fits with tubes that are appropriate for a persons riding style and body weight. In that regard, a custom builder such as Seven is far more cutting edge than any of the mass sellers. They have a huge database of bike fits from which to work off of. There's a fair amount of marketing that likens bike building to a science, but one could say its really more an art.
Colnago C-59 (Dura Ace)
Firefly(Ultegra)
Colnago C-64 disc(ultegra) with Bora 35 wheels

goodboyr
Posts: 1483
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 10:56 pm
Location: Canada

by goodboyr

I wasn't trying to disprove or prove. As you've said its anecdotal. But the statement that they have QC issues is anecdotal too.........but thats for another thread. :-)

justkeepedaling
Posts: 1707
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:14 am

by justkeepedaling

I thought this thread was about production frames...

This whole talk about marketing, do you really understand how engineering works?

uraqt
Posts: 1108
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 8:53 am

by uraqt

I am a Cervelo fan boy.. but the real question is why all the Cervelo hate? I said it in a past "topic" but in this day and age the definition of an Expert is somebody who it transparent about their product.

http://www.firstwatt.com/index.html

http://schiit.com/products

https://www.apple.com/environment/reports/

http://www.cervelo.com/media/docs/Cerve ... 48e0-0.pdf

Cervelo set the bar with that white-paper and from what I can find no other manufacture is close... Felt might be 2nd with SupeDave answer questions : )

C

PS
One of the reasons I bought a R3SL is because of how Cervelo handled all their build issues...The were open about them and explained them clearly. That was before the white-paper advertising : )

fromtrektocolnago
Posts: 1145
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 10:15 pm

by fromtrektocolnago

Love the Cervelo white paper. The marketing sure earned their ducats there. They come up with a couple of watts in a wind tunnel with a dummy under controlled circumstances. Not sure how much if any of that translates in the real world and what significance it holds. One thing is clear to me, Cervelo touts white papers more than any other bike company. Shouldn't the Tour De France be won every year by a Cervelo?

I do know some people who love their Cervelos, also know some people who didn't. If owning a cervelo has worked for you and gets you excited about riding, then great. I just question whether their technology is really so cutting edge or just hype, but then again when it comes to things like press it bb's, well I'm from Misouri, so show me.
Colnago C-59 (Dura Ace)
Firefly(Ultegra)
Colnago C-64 disc(ultegra) with Bora 35 wheels

User avatar
phatphuk
Posts: 75
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 5:39 pm

by phatphuk

justkeepedaling wrote:I thought this thread was about production frames...

This whole talk about marketing, do you really understand how engineering works?

I'm one of the several who have talked about marketing. So I'll bite. Engineering is what Dilbert does for a living. But what has that got to do with the price of eggs? :?

Do you understand what marketing is? If you guessed "It's what you do when you go to the market", then you'd be kinda sorta right. I would have also accepted: Marketing is about making people believe what you want them to believe about whatever product you're selling in order to compel them to plonk their hard-earned money down for whatever product you're selling...in the market" as an alternative simple layman's explanation of what marketing is essentially about.

So if where you're going with your question is where I anticipate you are going, then I would remind you that the OP has already conceded that..."The debate about who one can believe is in essence at the core of the original post...". Then marketing is germane to the topic of this thread.

Put it all together and what have you got? You've got all the bike magazine reviews, all the technical specifications, all the cryptic acronyms, all the independent 3rd party tests, all the white papers, all the pro team sponsorships, all being simply different ways of ???? [say it with me]...M-A-R-K-E-T-I-N-G.

There's nothing in the marketing text books that says marketing has to be sophisticated to be effective. So even something as grassroots as your riding buddy bragging to you about his latest purchase counts as marketing. Right? The stunning-looking next year's model sitting pretty in the bike store display? The "Show Me Your [enter some bike brand here]" type threads in this forum and the others? All marketing. And ALL bike companies do it.

So you see? The thing about marketing is, you know you're doing it right when your target market doesn't even realize their being marketed to.

justkeepedaling
Posts: 1707
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:14 am

by justkeepedaling

I'm a design engineer in the aerospace business. Let's get this straight. Yes, everything that the consumer sees is some sort of marketing. But it's important to understand the distinction of how the terminology is used. In this context, it is nuanced to refer to giving of data that isn't true, slightly fudged, or a half truth (true but inconsequential). If I'm given a design target and a cost target, and I meet those and the program office puts that in a presentation, is that marketing? What if I make the same presentation and give it to the customer, is it engineering data?

I am also inherently critical of anything I read, but take a look at people doing Chung tests. Look at people doing windtunnel testing like John Cobb. There's no marketing bias in that. They simply want the fastest bike/configuration they can get. Over the years, absolutely everyone has seen that Cervelo's aero testing is spot on.

Look at people weighing their frames. Lo and behold, Cervelo's are consistently market leading. There's no marketing bias to those numbers. Cervelo gives a range of weight values for the RCA, that's exactly where those weights lie. They can market the hell out of it if they are truly innovating. I really don't care.

wingguy
Posts: 4318
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 11:43 pm

by wingguy

mpulsiv wrote:Cervelo got aesthetic down, that's for sure, up to 2013? Now they slap those over-sized decal, loud & proud.


Now?

P2K. Image

Dual. Image

Soloist. Image

Superprodigy. Image

Seems to me like the current range is using Cervelo's classic aesthetic. :wink:

User avatar
phatphuk
Posts: 75
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 5:39 pm

by phatphuk

justkeepedaling wrote:"... In this context, it is nuanced to refer to giving of data that isn't true, slightly fudged, or a half truth (true but inconsequential)..."

Could you provide quoted snippets of posts that you read as being in the context you're referring to as "this context"? Please? I like your questions. And I want to answer them. But I want to make sure I will be answering in the right context first. Please?

User avatar
phatphuk
Posts: 75
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 5:39 pm

by phatphuk

justkeepedaling wrote:"I'm a design engineer in the aerospace business..."

I reread some earlier posts in which others have suggested that a specific company's marketing "isn't true, slightly fudged, or a half truth". Now that I've seen that your hardy defense of Cervelo is about whatever beef you have with those other posters and not with me, I can keep my answers to your questions nice and simple...

justkeepedaling wrote:"...If I'm given a design target and a cost target, and I meet those and the program office puts that in a presentation, is that marketing?..."

If the presentation is to a business partner or a regulatory authority or an in-house pep talk to rally the troops or to get buy-in from management, then those wouldn't fit with my earlier definition of marketing.

justkeepedaling wrote:"...What if I make the same presentation and give it to the customer, is it engineering data?..."

If your customer works with engineering data as part of whatever relationship you've established with them then my guess is yes you could expect that they would use it as engineering data. Sure.

Another contrived scenario, but interesting nonetheless, might be if the marketing department of your aerospace engineering business decides to market their product [in a positive context of course] to the Dilberts of the world, then the same data could be both marketing material AND engineering data. How about that for kill-two-birds-with-one-stone efficiency? ;)

Post Reply