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




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 28 posts ] 
Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 11, 2004 12:04 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2003 9:01 pm
Posts: 2477
Location: Colorado
Quote:
The Cannondale is lugged, there are only 2 ways Lugged and Monocoque. The Oxford dictionary defines lug as fixed in place. The carbon is fixed in place. even if you build a frame and then cut out the sections, what you are left with are lugs.


So dose that mean my shoes are lugged when fixed in my pedals place? Or how about my wheels, there fixed in place, so they muct be lugged to!

That definition is pretty broad, with it, if you take it word for word as you have pretty much everything in the world is lugged. The definition doesn't really apply directly to bicycle, just in general.

I spoke to the cannondale rep, he gave me very detailed information about the frameset. Even he told me that it is not lugged, as cannondale claims their method is far supperior to lugged frames.

Quote:
It would still be possible to take the two materials apart once in the frame


No it isn't, as the bond from aluminum to carbon is both a mechanical and chemical bond. Lugged frames only have chemical bonds, not mechanical. I held a chopped up six 13 in my hands, and saw the mechanical bond.

Heres a pic, notice the whole rear triangle, pretty much one piece. If there is a lug on the bike it is the head tube, but it isn't because the aluminum is all welded together and then seemlessly transfer into carbon.


Attachments:
NOT LUGGED!.JPG
NOT LUGGED!.JPG [ 56.61 KiB | Viewed 648 times ]

_________________
MAMA SAID KNOCK YOU OUT! HUH!
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
Posted: Sun Apr 11, 2004 12:04 am 


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 11, 2004 1:58 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2003 5:18 pm
Posts: 723
Location: Austin
I am not looking for a fight and not looking to offend but I have been biting my tongue too long on this one.

What does the mechanical bond have to do with being or not being lugged? If I make a lugged joint and then run a screw through its still lugged isn’t it? But is also mechanically bonded. Heck, that’s what the old art of pinning a steel lugged frame was about.

I see this bike as welded aluminum lugs regardless of whether they were welded up complete and cut apart or not.

The carbon tubes are fabricated (molded) in place, inside these lugs. The lugs have a couple little holes cut in them so the carbon has a bit of a “hook” (SL’s mechanical bond)

Now let me point this out, all of the welded aluminum lugged carbon frames (ala trigon) are aluminum and carbon tubes bonded then mitered and finally jigged and welded. Are they lugged or not? Who cares!

Doesn’t matter what you call it, its still aluminum intersections glued to carbon tubes with a little help of a mechanical thingy.

All it really means is that if you break a tube you can toss the frame cause there is no way they are going to put it back into the production line to have a new tube formed into it.

This is also still quite a bit different than isogrid where there is a matrix of ti running the full length of the tube. The cannodale has no alum between the intersections of the main triangle

My 2 cents


ps, how many of the people arguing this have taken the time to run through the marketing material on this topic at the legalize my cannondale web site?

How much does it weigh cause thats all that really matters here.

_________________
www.crumptoncycles.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 11, 2004 7:11 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 7:12 pm
Posts: 162
As for the headtube not being a lug because it is welded together, do you seriously think that manufacturers of lugged bike machine an aluminium lug out of a solid block of aluminium.

And if you listen to a Cannondale rep and take that as gospel......

Trek use a mechanical bond for the joins, so this is not new. My backpack uses a mechanical bond for its straps. even if I had to glue the clips together, I could still heat up or dissolve the glue, unclip and would still have 2 disstinct pieces.

Same with cannondale six13

As for weight

Please legalise my Cannondale? this thing is over 1100 grams, and with Cannondales track record, that means probably more. Not even close to being light.

They should rather focus on their traditional stronpoints which are Stiffness and sharp handeling. As for looks, that is personal. But Cannondale just look like a normal bike with chunky tubes.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 11, 2004 8:14 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2003 9:01 pm
Posts: 2477
Location: Colorado
Quote:
They should rather focus on their traditional stronpoints which are Stiffness and sharp handeling.


Have you ever ridden a Cannondale? They focus on exactly what you said, stiffness and handling. Why do you think their frames are 1150g for the six13 and 1250g for the CAAD7? Weight is not their goal, rideability is. Weight comes second with them.

_________________
MAMA SAID KNOCK YOU OUT! HUH!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 11, 2004 10:06 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2003 10:54 am
Posts: 16
Location: germany
Superlite wrote:
Quote:
They should rather focus on their traditional stronpoints which are Stiffness and sharp handeling.


Have you ever ridden a Cannondale? They focus on exactly what you said, stiffness and handling. Why do you think their frames are 1150g for the six13 and 1250g for the CAAD7? Weight is not their goal, rideability is. Weight comes second with them.



But if weight is not their goal, what do they want with their "legalize....." campaign? Proof, that you can build up a light complete bike with a (compared to some other carbon frames) relatively heavy frame?
I think this campaign is quite ridiculous.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 11, 2004 10:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2004 7:35 pm
Posts: 1435
Location: Middle of nowhere, EU
Mme.Chauchat wrote:
Superlite wrote:
Quote:
They should rather focus on their traditional stronpoints which are Stiffness and sharp handeling.


Have you ever ridden a Cannondale? They focus on exactly what you said, stiffness and handling. Why do you think their frames are 1150g for the six13 and 1250g for the CAAD7? Weight is not their goal, rideability is. Weight comes second with them.



But if weight is not their goal, what do they want with their "legalize....." campaign? Proof, that you can build up a light complete bike with a (compared to some other carbon frames) relatively heavy frame?
I think this campaign is quite ridiculous.



I think the Caad 6 was the last stiff Cannondale frame. The Caad 7 feels very italian wobbly as does Pinarello, Opera, Vinder, De Rosa and so on...
Caad 6 felt like Klein Q pro, Principia and Boreas. Quite a change in direction. Which dale has admitted in pressreleases regarding the caad 7 last year.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 11, 2004 5:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2004 8:43 pm
Posts: 644
mrowkoob wrote:


I think the Caad 6 was the last stiff Cannondale frame. The Caad 7 feels very italian wobbly as does Pinarello, Opera, Vinder, De Rosa and so on...
Caad 6 felt like Klein Q pro, Principia and Boreas. Quite a change in direction. Which dale has admitted in pressreleases regarding the caad 7 last year.



correct me if i'm wrong but CAAD6 was a caad5 frame with the integrated crankset. (i recall this because i thought everything after caad6 was going to have the integrated bb, and i work at a shop)

and they stopped the confusion by going to caad7 which you can get in either bb. and was renamed to optimo.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 11, 2004 5:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2003 9:01 pm
Posts: 2477
Location: Colorado
Quote:
and was renamed to optimo.


First year of CAAD7 was not optimo, second year cannondale started using optimo tubing to save 15% weight.

_________________
MAMA SAID KNOCK YOU OUT! HUH!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 11, 2004 5:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2004 8:43 pm
Posts: 644
http://www.cannondale.com/bikes/innovation/caad7/

i know it was called caad 7. then they changed to optimo and i recal hearing it was lighter then caad7, but accordign to their site its the same thing.

Quote:
caad7 uses our all new optimo alluminum alloy which boasts 15% greater tensile strength then regular aluminum
[/quote]


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 11, 2004 6:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2004 1:36 pm
Posts: 4123
That's incorrect. Check the below link:
http://www.cannondale.com/cog/02/caad7.html

Quote:
The official debut of the CAAD7, scheduled for early 2002, will mark the first time that Cannondale has used any alloy other than 6061-T6 aluminum. The CAAD7's new, proprietary aluminum alloy will allow Cannondale to use thinner, weight-saving walls in selected tubes without compromising strength. Creatively manipulating the shape of the tubes will also ensure that the CAAD7 has Cannondale's trademark efficiency, light weight and comfort.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 13, 2004 8:49 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 11:00 am
Posts: 152
Location: Reggio Emilia, ITALY
@ mrowkoob:

I've ridden both CAAD 5, Pinarello Prince and De Rosa Merak (2002) : there's no way the Cannondale could be stiffer than (those) italian bikes...
Prince is stiffer, more reactive and more "compact" (i don't know exact word: I mean it seems to be a single piece instead of tubes welded toghether) ; De Rosa is stiffer too, but it lacks something on rough roads, it's stiff but not so resistant...
Cannondale is a great bike, but not so reactive as other two... but it's lighter than Pinarello (very much lighter)...
Notice that i use very compact sizes, so things may be slightly different in bigger sizes...

Bye, Benz.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 13, 2004 11:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2004 7:35 pm
Posts: 1435
Location: Middle of nowhere, EU
They must be since I ride size 60 and 61 and have exactly the opposite experience.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 13, 2004 2:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 11:00 am
Posts: 152
Location: Reggio Emilia, ITALY
I ride 48-49 sizes...

I've heard also of reliability problems with Prince as big as your size (riders who broke 2 or 3 frames within 18 months !!)

WHEN THE SIZE DOES MATTER...!!

Bye, Benz.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 28 posts ] 
Go to page Previous  1, 2


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], em3, Exabot [Bot], Google [Bot], MSNbot Media and 56 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:  

It is currently Sat Apr 19, 2014 11:50 pm

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