BeeSeeBee wrote:I understood that he was talking about the ride quality as being plush as compared to him previously calling the Foil harsh. My point is that for frames where ride quality probably isn't a top engineering priority, people still wax poetic about the ride quality. And yet other people think the extra 500g that go into heavier frames that are known for their ride quality is necessary because of the meticulous layups, etc. Some people love the ride of Tarmacs, others find it too harsh. He says the Foil is a harsh ride, another person says it's not, there's not really any consensus. Basing this stuff on the perception of people (even reviewers, as another poster recommended) is just a poor way of teasing out any differences. Things like branding, tube shapes, sounds when you hit a bump, hearsay from other people, etc. all create expectations and form biases within us that make us.
I work in the sensory industry (food related), and we go through great lengths to blind things as best as possible because as soon as just a bit of information is given to our testers, they all of a sudden taste/smell/feel all the things that they "know" they should based on the brand/ingredients/etc. I absolutely believe we are subject to so many biases that if we don't control for them, experiences should be treated very tenuously.
As far as frames and ride quality.
I have been in contact with Guru, Argonaut, Parlee, Paduano racing, Legend bikes, Ax Lightness, Rolo bikes, Jure Berk (Berk Composites) to name a few!
Most claim that a frame with some more weight is more easy to tune for a less road feedback frame when we talk of feedback as vibrations that you may find fatiguing.
In terms of Foil, i took a great interest to further check it's tubings profiles and ask / search information on what the shapes of tubes aswell as layup had to or could have to do with a harsh ride.
Finally it was broke down for me what is the most resonable explanation.
Some say tubes shape and size have no or little effect, but i don't think so. I work only with metal being a former welder but not now.
So no carbon composite knowledge. But i very much "buy" the reasons i have been told/ learned from people actually working carbon with their own hands, designing layups every single day.
Further i have a contact riding Scott bikes and now from Foil to Addict SL, i have had this difference of ride feel very much confirmed. Bear in mind, Foil and Addict line carry same geometry.
Now, the Addict rides nicer than Foil. Ax Lightness inspite of it's very light weight is in it's core a frame that feels nimble and snappy, but it also offers a very nice ride feel.
This along with a stiff front end.
I don't suggest it is the opposite in the rear, i think it feels very balanced. If you would build to bikes with same wheels and tires, and carry over handlebar, stem and saddle you would feel this to. I don't suggest it is so vague you think it's a placebo effect. It is not! If you rely on reviews, well i think it seems you are like me a bit skeptic. But as is, Foil was extensively used by one mag and they also rode Look 695. 695 won hands down in direct compairson over Foil and many things came down to how the actual ride feel was.
Forget the wider tire and lower pressure as all and everything. Ofcourse it matters very much, but frames are different!
It just so happens that stiff all over has been a trend, perhaps not for some and Ax Lightness has a receipt that works if you like a good mix.
I don't say only Ax has, Look and Pinarello are well known for this to. A good dealer which has some brands could point you towards these frames, for instance Time is also well known for this.
It is wise to be a skeptic in this hobby, but at times there are actually differences that you really feel and appreciate.