Weight Weenies
* FAQ    * Search    * Trending Topics
* Login   * Register
HOME Listings Blog NEW Galleries NEW FAQ Contact About Impressum
It is currently Wed Nov 22, 2017 7:50 pm

All times are UTC+01:00





Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 12:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:36 pm
Posts: 875
We are in 2017 where we now have a 640g frame in the Emonda SLR (as well as several other sub 700g frames). There are only a few bikes still left being made of carbon lugs.

But have monocoque frames passed lugged in overall characteristics? Definitely on weight and stiffness. Ride feel and comfort can be subjective.

Is there still a place for lugged frames or is it outdated? Other than the traditional look, can it still compete overall?


Top
   
Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 12:56 pm 


Top
   
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 1:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 5:53 pm
Posts: 1093
Location: Expat in Washington DC
If people are still buying them, then of course they can compete......

The C60 is as popular as ever and being successfully raced in the world tour.......


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 1:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 10:29 am
Posts: 6676
Location: Athens, Greece
Lugged frames outdated? See the Colnago thread...

_________________
My 6536gr TIME Skylon
My 9733gr COLNAGO Master X-light


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 2:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:36 pm
Posts: 875
For sure the C60 is a fantastic frame as were the Look 585/595 and Time RXRS. Definitely agree.

However in 2017, we have monocoque frames in the low 600s and about to break below 600 grams soon. Yet the C60 is what, double that at around 1200 grams? This is WW after all. Sure the lugged frames are quite special and ride very nice. But maybe monocoques weight advantage + stiffnes + compliance has really given them an edge over what a lug frame can offer in comparison. 6-7 years ago the weight + stiffness difference wasn't that large in lugged vs. monocoque frames. But now, there is a much larger difference.


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 3:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 14, 2013 9:53 pm
Posts: 109
tranzformer wrote:
For sure the C60 is a fantastic frame as were the Look 585/595 and Time RXRS. Definitely agree.

However in 2017, we have monocoque frames in the low 600s and about to break below 600 grams soon. Yet the C60 is what, double that at around 1200 grams? This is WW after all. Sure the lugged frames are quite special and ride very nice. But maybe monocoques weight advantage + stiffnes + compliance has really given them an edge over what a lug frame can offer in comparison. 6-7 years ago the weight + stiffness difference wasn't that large in lugged vs. monocoque frames. But now, there is a much larger difference.


Most of the frames you are referring to as 'monocoque' are actually several pieces that are lugged and glued together. The lugs are not apparent after the finishing is done and there are fewer pieces than frames like the C60 have...but they are not made as a single piece and popped out of a mold.

Construction techniques have been refined and will continue to be refined....but calling them monocoque is a misnomer.


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 3:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 12:29 am
Posts: 234
The one thing lugged frames will always have over monocoque frames is sizing, 15cm stems and seat posts rated to min insertion marks are just FUGLY, not to mention totally changing the handling characteristics the frame maker spent so much work on.


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 4:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 10:29 am
Posts: 6676
Location: Athens, Greece
Who said that the top frames are the superlight ones?

_________________
My 6536gr TIME Skylon
My 9733gr COLNAGO Master X-light


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 5:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:03 am
Posts: 507
Location: Madison, WI USA
pyrahna wrote:
Most of the frames you are referring to as 'monocoque' are actually several pieces that are lugged and glued together. The lugs are not apparent after the finishing is done and there are fewer pieces than frames like the C60 have...but they are not made as a single piece and popped out of a mold.

Construction techniques have been refined and will continue to be refined....but calling them monocoque is a misnomer.


You're technically right, of course, but I think the distinction here is between frames that are made from prefab tubes/cured-in-place lugs and monocoque/quasi-monocoque frames.

Tube-and-lug construction is less structurally efficient than monocoque/quasi-monocoque construction, and a company that can buy a set of 5-7 molds for one model can often afford to pay engineers to come up with a really light-yet-robust laminate schedule. One example of this is Trek and its Emonda.

The combination of structural efficiency and mature laminate schedules mean it's easier to build a sub-700-gram frame as a monocoque/quasi-monocoque than it is to build one with tubes and molded-in-place lugs.

I expect tube-and-lug construction to become even more of a specialty for custom builders (who need the inherent flexibility) and sentimental legacy brands like Colnago. The driving reason is aerodynamics. If you're designing a mold anyway, it's straightforward to make the frame more aerodynamic than you can with tubes bought from ENVE and molded-in-place lugs.

There's room for both in the marketplace, of course. But a few years ago, I drooled over custom round-tubed Crumptons. Now, I'm holding out for a disc-braked Madone. I don't need custom geometry (though I'll be paying too much extra for Trek's H1 fit) and the Madone's combination of comfort and aerodynamics at a reasonable weight is hard to beat.


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 6:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 10:15 pm
Posts: 814
Don't confuse what's cheaper to produce vs what's better for the consumer.. It wasn't a superior bike that drove manufacturers away from threaded bottom brackets but lowering production costs. Same is true with monocoque frames.

_________________
Colnago C-59 (Dura Ace)
Firefly(Ultegra)
Trek 5200(ultegra)


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 6:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 5:52 am
Posts: 564
fromtrektocolnago wrote:
Don't confuse what's cheaper to produce vs what's better for the consumer.. It wasn't a superior bike that drove manufacturers away from threaded bottom brackets but lowering production costs. Same is true with monocoque frames.


It's very arguable that the fact that they are cheaper to build allows the mfg to put more R&D into the design, since they know they can come to market at a price point and still make money. Lugged construction may be pleasing, but it's inefficient (it uses more carbon fiber) and is arguably more labor intensive (laying up and curing lugs, transporting lugs to area to be assembled with tubes, then jigging to ensure alignment).

I honestly think that what pleases people about lugged carbon bikes is the looks, and inherent damping provided by structural breaks and more intensive use of composites (i.e. heavier). Mono builders could do all of the same things, but then the material price goes up, as does weight. Harder to make a return on that product.


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 7:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 14, 2013 9:53 pm
Posts: 109
fromtrektocolnago wrote:
Don't confuse what's cheaper to produce vs what's better for the consumer.. It wasn't a superior bike that drove manufacturers away from threaded bottom brackets but lowering production costs. Same is true with monocoque frames.


Traditionally 'Lugged' frames have less up front cost and slightly more per unit cost. This is due to smaller molds (mold cost goes up exponentially with size) and fewer molds for a size run (the lugs are usually the same for all sizes). They require slightly more labor to assemble hence the slightly larger per unit cost.

At the end of the day large volume manufacturers will choose fewer more expensive molds w/ less per unit cost because they can amortize away the mold cost pretty quickly, where as smaller manufacturers that becomes a much harder pill to swallow. This is a long way of saying....the economies of this are slightly more complex than <Insert Industry Giant Here> is trying to screw you with a cheap bike. For instance look at Allied Cycle Works....I don't think anyone is accusing them of cutting corners and they could do it however they want....but they are approaching building their bikes in a 'quasi-monocoque' way despite being much much lower volumes than Trek, Giant, & Specialized.


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 7:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm
Posts: 4749
I actually think that the sophisticated carbon layups that "can" be done today, have the potential to produce a more finely tuned frame than what can reasonably be done using lugs and tubes. As was mentioned, the advantage to lugged frames is the ability to alter the geometry and produce one off customs fairly easily, which you cannot do with a mold. I do believe that either method could produce super lightweight frames, but I think that's easier to do in a mold with highly specific layup schedules. Colnago does not attempt to produce any super lightweight frames. I think that is a philosophical choice rather than a technical one. When I got my first Colnago (a late model C40) I rode an earlyTrek Carbon frame back to back. The Trek was a size 60. It was extremely harsh riding, and although it felt very responsive, it did have a kind of "brittle" feel to it. Plus, it was just butt ugly in a size 60. The headtube area had massive web of carbon between the top tube and downtube. Really quite ugly. The lugged Colnago was simply beautiful, and had none of the harshness of the Trek.

That was then. Fast forward to today and the Trek Emonda is fairly equal in my mind, from a ride standpoint to Colnago. In 2014 I picked up an Emonda SL for my rain bike. Extremely impressed with this bike. Very similar fit geometry to my Colnago, same top tube length, same seat tube angle, just the front end geometry was quite different. And pretty much the same weight. Plus, the harshness of those early carbon Treks was all gone. It felt good, even compliant in the rear, more so than the Colnago. I attribute that to the layup and frame design. I do believe Trek's R&D is pretty far advanced when it comes to the layups they can do. It's very impressive what they've done weightwise with their latest Emonda. It's really the only ultralight frame I would even want to try, let alone risk riding down a technical descent. There really is no way in hell that I'd contract with a one off frame builder to build me a one off super light frameset. Companies like Trek have undoubtedly tested these things every which way to destruction many times over. A one off frame builder simply does not have the resources to do that... you become the test mule, for that one frame, that they built for you.

Adding to that is that I simply like the aesthetic lines of the Emonda. I guess I always have, the older madones as well. I could just never get past the under and behind the bb brake placement. But they've since seen the light and gone away from that.

Love my Colnagos for sure, there's a lot of history, they ride beautifully, they're well designed and made, a pleasure to work on, etc. But there can be a lot of magic underneath the paint job of a highly engineered bicycle frame, and I think the frames being made in molds can utilize that the best.

But I still think the ultralight frames lack a quality of ride that comes with a bit of extra material that dampens things out a bit, in addition to making the whole experience a more solid one. For us big guys, that's kind of important. I would like to ride one of the new Emonda SLR's however, set up exactly like my colnagos with the same components etc. That would be a fun experiment.

_________________
Colnago C60 - PR99
C59 Five Years Later
My Special Colnago EPQ
Trek Emonda SL Campagnolo SR


Last edited by Calnago on Thu Jul 13, 2017 10:21 pm, edited 5 times in total.

Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 9:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 1:31 am
Posts: 663
Calnago wrote:
In 2014 I picked up an Emonda SL for my rain bike. Extremely expressed with this bike. Very similar fit geometry to my Colnago, same top tube length, same seat tube angle, just the front end geometry was quite different. And pretty much the same weight.


Would you be so kind as to list the exact model, year, size of Trek and Colnago you are comparing. I am curious how Colnago geometry is anything at all similar to any other bike made. Did Ernesto make you a custom frame with a 2 cm longer top tube?


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 10:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm
Posts: 4749
Size 60 Emonda vs 61 Traditional C59 (take your pic of years, the geometry is pretty much the same).

Effective top tube Length: 586mm both bikes
Seat tube angle: 72.8 degrees both bikes (rounding Colnago's 72.75 degree angle).
Headtube length: at 195mm for the Colnago it sits smack in the middle of Trek's H1 and H2 geometries (size 60).

Easy to get exactly the same fit, without resorting to different length stems etc. I was always curious to compare the two, since they arrive at very similar trail numbers but get there in very different ways. For instance, Trek uses a relatively steep headtube angle coupled with a shallow (40mm fork offset). Colnago's headtube angle is slacker but uses a more common 43mm fork offset.

_________________
Colnago C60 - PR99
C59 Five Years Later
My Special Colnago EPQ
Trek Emonda SL Campagnolo SR


Top
   
Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 10:12 pm 


Top
   
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 14, 2017 9:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2012 11:17 am
Posts: 161
Location: bottom edge of Australia
Purely subjectively speaking, for my requirements, lugged carbon is the zenith of frame construction for me. I've owned, borrowed and tested several nice, top shelf monocoque frames which were indeed lighter and felt faster than the C40,C50 EP and EPS Colnago frames I've ridden and adore. However, at the cost of some extra weight I much prefer the ride qualities of these lugged carbon frames and will only be interested in such until alternate manufacturing methods come up with an affordable light weight frame that eats high freq. road buzz and looks suitably stately like lugged carbon frames do.

Having said this, I must admit that all my lugged carbon frames purchases have been 2nd hand bar the C50 which was NOS and begging to be liquidated at a price I could actually afford. The C60 (if it was not too harsh a ride for my liking) is a frame I could only consider purchasing 2nd hand in several years time if they drop enough value to allow me to enter the ball park. So I am not likely to further advance the lugged carbon industry anytime soon............

Although I personally cannot afford a C60 at today's prices nor what ever the latest lugged model is/will be at any time in the foreseeable future, I see no shortage of riders out there who are takers for the C60 which should at least see Colnago carry the hand made in Italy lugged carbon model through to the next model which will have a production run of XX number years. So at least in the case of Colnago the success of the C60 should see lugged carbon frameset avail. for purchase into the near future.


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 Next

   Similar Topics   Author   Replies   Views   Last post 
There are no new unread posts for this topic. Use of nano resins in carbon frames

in Road

sussexhills

4

725

Sat Jan 28, 2017 10:49 am

GothicCastle View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Legend frames

in Road

blueturtle

4

1651

Sun Jan 29, 2017 1:43 am

phillipivan View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Attachment(s) Which other frames have the same geometry as the Colnago C60?

[ Go to page: 1 2 ]

in Road

TonyM

16

1894

Sun Apr 16, 2017 8:57 am

AJS914 View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Attachment(s) Foreign objects in frames

in Road

JScycle

12

525

Wed Nov 22, 2017 5:48 am

robertbb View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Thoughts on switching frames?

in Road

baldwintodd

3

616

Mon May 08, 2017 4:46 pm

kulivontot View the latest post


All times are UTC+01:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], hidefguy, lotushiast, sungod and 34 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:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited