Tour Magazine tests 2015.03

[justkeepedaling]

Have a hard time believing the Emonda frameset was lighter than the RCA

[AndreLM]

Assuming it is overall rating, is there much point in a regression of a single component, leaving out all the other independent contributing factors?

The point is that giving the same score on weight for all of them, changed the overall result.

[airwise]

The point being ( and I know we are on WW so it's controversial), the 100-150g difference is utterly inconsequential in the grand scheme of things so the same score is easily justified.

Where it isn't justified is when playing top trumps but Tour isn't doing that - that's what we do

[kgt]

It is really amusing the fact you can buy two bikestore superbikes such as Rose X-lite for aprox the price of one RCA frameset.

Says the man who champions Cipollini frames in another thread

You 're right being sarcastic cause I did not explain myself:
What I find amusing is the fact so many fall into the 'Tour test trap'. Cervelo or Trek engineers loose the battle from Rose(?!) because their marketing is mostly based on the 'min weight / max stifness' numbers rhetoric. Sorry guys but you did it all wrong. It seems the german newbie does the work better than you even if its budget, R&D and pro racing experience are almost zero in comparison!

In my opinion a respected manufacturer should only base its position on 'ride quality'. That's what a top bike is all about and not a specific array of numbers. Of course numbers are part of this ride quality but not exclusively. That is why the manufacturers I respect do not get crazy 'analyzing' their frames in numbers but focus insted on gradually evolving a top ride quality.

Manufacturers like Colnago, Pinarello and, yes, Cipollini follow this route IMO.

[djconnel]

They score on components, then take a weighted average of components for the overall score. The score I plot is just the weight score. You can tell because the curve is non-decreasing (more weight never scores better).

The issue with saying "150 grams is inconsequential" arguments supporting binning (and it's not, I can easily show you examples where it makes a difference in uphill time trials) is that at some point you conclude a 1 gram difference (the one which switches you to the next bin) is more important than a 150 gram difference which fails to switch you to the next bin. Better to not bin then every gram counts as much as any other. It's even worse for the 1.0 bin because they don't allow for a 0.7 bin, so the 1.0 bin is forced to accept all values down to zero.

A big deal around here (SF Bay area) to some is to log a million vertical climbing feet in a year. If your bike weighs 150 grams more, that's an extra 450 kJ not counting rolling resistance. If you're averaging 200 watts that's 38 minutes per year, more like 42 minutes with rolling resistance. So even for non racing stuff adds up. That said I ride a steel bike 97% of the time. But I'm not targeting any climbing foot total, either.

[HillRPete]

Thanks for the clarifications DJ. Always enjoying your plots, although I went lo-fi on most cycling stuff (ditched carbon frame, cyle computer ...)

[wheelsONfire]

Trek Emonda SLR lightest!?
I doubt that very much!
Look at the frame size of this bike.
Mine is a 56/ Large Vial EVO D.
Uncut fork, headset, headcap + expander, liners, BB bearings, derailleur hanger, fd clamp and seat skewer 1020g.

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=127604

This frame ^, had no BB installed so need i say more??

[BeeSeeBee]

In my opinion a respected manufacturer should only base its position on 'ride quality'. That's what a top bike is all about and not a specific array of numbers. Of course numbers are part of this ride quality but not exclusively. That is why the manufacturers I respect do not get crazy 'analyzing' their frames in numbers but focus insted on gradually evolving a top ride quality.

Manufacturers like Colnago, Pinarello and, yes, Cipollini follow this route IMO.

And if they've tried to but found that people can't really differentiate between frames, what do you suggest they do then, continue down the same magic and mysticism route so many believe matters, or put their energy towards tangible things like weight and aerodynamics?

Thoughts on science & perception
Perception vs. Reality article from the front page
Blind testing Comfort Cervelo S3 Vs R3

[djconnel]

The RCA frame itself was lighter than the Emonda but the Emonda won on fork and bearings. Cervelo has recently made a big deal about fork reliability and beefed up the RCA fork in the latest version. They compensated with a lighter frame relative to the previous RCA but this provided an opening for Trek to exploit. That said I don't know what fraction of the Emonda frames are this light -- no more than 0.1% surely. Most are several hundred grams heavier. This is just SLR with vapor coat.

[wheelsONfire]

The RCA frame itself was lighter than the Emonda but the Emonda won on fork and bearings. Cervelo has recently made a big deal about fork reliability and beefed up the RCA fork in the latest version. They compensated with a lighter frame relative to the previous RCA but this provided an opening for Trek to exploit. That said I don't know what fraction of the Emonda frames are this light -- no more than 0.1% surely. Most are several hundred grams heavier. This is just SLR with vapor coat.

I thought the new Cervelo fork was lighter than previous gen fork?
Only thing i notice was that they claimed the 2014 model TT could crack if you sat at it.

What would be a nice test would be all bikes tested, no-one new what frame brand they rode and no price told.
Which would win and why!?

What i wonder is why Rolo bikes and Guru Photon HL is never along in these tests.
These two are seriously expensive frames, should they not be considered the very top end of frames avaible today?

Without question i would take the RCA if i could have one pick. I have never tried one, but frames i would like to test today are, Rolo, RCA, Guru Photon HL and Berk.
I would deem ride feel as number 1. If one frame felt better, i would pick that one even if it was 100 grams more heavy.
Today it seems there are plenty of frames avaible under 900 grams. If i hadn't bought Vial EVO D, i would look at Kuota Khan 2015.
Rolo and RCA are probably dream frames for most of us, but they cost too much.

[airwise]

.
The issue with saying "150 grams is inconsequential" arguments supporting binning (and it's not, I can easily show you examples where it makes a difference in uphill time trials) is that at some point you conclude a 1 gram difference (the one which switches you to the next bin) is more important than a 150 gram difference which fails to switch you to the next bin. Better to not bin then every gram counts as much as any other. It's even worse for the 1.0 bin because they don't allow for a 0.7 bin, so the 1.0 bin is forced to accept all values down to zero.

A big deal around here (SF Bay area) to some is to log a million vertical climbing feet in a year. If your bike weighs 150 grams more, that's an extra 450 kJ not counting rolling resistance. If you're averaging 200 watts that's 38 minutes per year, more like 42 minutes with rolling resistance. So even for non racing stuff adds up. That said I ride a steel bike 97% of the time. But I'm not targeting any climbing foot total, either.

I've climbed 3,700,000 feet over the past four years. My fastest times were not on my lightest bikes. They were on the best riding ones. If you are only putting out 200w I would have thought it better to spend the money on some coaching rather than an expensive WW bike but that's just me.

If I climb Alpe d'Huez on a 7kg bike, weighing in at 154lb and go sub 50 mins, that 150g will save me six tenths of a watt. or about 0.2% of effort.

Overstating the case or what?

[kgt]

@ airwise
+100. I really cannot believe how some people can isolate a parameter of a bike in order to say "this is x grams lighter so it will make you y second faster". Sorry, that's not the way it works.
@BeeSeeBee
Ride quality is neither magic nor mysticism. IMHO many experienced riders can discern between a nice ride, a bad ride and an indifferent one. Le Cycle's magazine tests provide a good example of this.

[BeeSeeBee]

re: parameters, physics dictate that yes, that is the way things work (everything else being controlled for, which is what I suppose what you're arguing, but I've seen no empirical evidence to support those claims).

I'm not familiar with those tests (are the available anywhere, I love reading about this stuff), but that directly counters what is coming from some engineers in the industry are saying about very seasoned riders (pros) experiences when blinding the bikes. Do they they blind the bikes?

I work in the sensory industry (food), and we find that when products are properly blinded and rotated, people don't know their ass from their elbow when put to a discrimination test of similar products. I'm more skeptical of claims detecting minute differences in things than I am claims of not. Our brains are so easily fooled by things right in front of us (sometimes even when explained what's going to fool us), that I'm incredibly suspect of the sheer number of riders on forums claiming they can detect slight differences (e.g. wringing their hands about a millimeter of shoe stack height difference but simultaneously ignoring differences in chamois between bibs). I think cycling has it's own overton window, and it's been changing in favor of empiricism as time goes by (e.g. rotational weight matters 2x as much, aero bikes are unrideably harsh, carbon wheels are harsher than aluminum, different wheels are harsh, etc. etc.). Then poof, it shifts and suddenly the things that were untenable are now accepted.

Claims of detectability of differences have been around forever, as have tests debunking them. http://www.habcycles.com/m7.html

[Calnago]

+++ to last three posts!

We have gauges and wind tunnels and devices that can measure imperceptible (to humans) differences in a lot of things. And we have spin doctors (marketing teams) who can then take these imperceptible differences and put them on a graph or chart (djconnels plots aside) against a x/y scale that makes it appear that a gram difference must be like a thousand pounds in real life. When in fact, to us mere mortals, they are, in fact... imperceptible. And god forbid I sneeze while riding, for that would throw test results out the window and render any differences invalid as they could have just as easily be caused by my sneeze. Damn cold anyway.
That's not to say I can't tell the difference between something that rides nice, or bad, as @kgt points out, but I sure as hell can't tell the difference of a hundred grams here and there when riding. But I can sure tell the difference when a bike is sketchy on a fast technical descent, and generally speaking, superlight stuff falls more often than not into that category.
One ratio that, to me, is meaningless without including an absolute number as well, is the stiffness to weight ratio. Something can have the highest stiffness to weight ratio in the world, but if there's not enough of it, it will break like a twig. Ants are always touted to be incredibly strong relative to their weight, but when I step on them... well... poor little ant.

[justkeepedaling]

The RCA frame itself was lighter than the Emonda but the Emonda won on fork and bearings. Cervelo has recently made a big deal about fork reliability and beefed up the RCA fork in the latest version. They compensated with a lighter frame relative to the previous RCA but this provided an opening for Trek to exploit. That said I don't know what fraction of the Emonda frames are this light -- no more than 0.1% surely. Most are several hundred grams heavier. This is just SLR with vapor coat.

Not accurate. The RCA frame is actually slightly heavier than the version prior. The fork is significantly lighter. Overall, the frameset is around 10 grams lighter than it was in the previous iteration.

Should be easily under 1000 grams for frameset including derailleur hangers, paint, waterbottle bolts, and seatpost clamp.