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  [ 46 posts ] 
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Sep 17, 2004 5:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2003 9:01 pm
Posts: 2477
Location: Colorado
WHat are these canyon frames I keep hearing about? Links, specs, price, availability?

THANKS!

_________________
MAMA SAID KNOCK YOU OUT! HUH!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Sep 17, 2004 5:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2003 12:34 pm
Posts: 1653
Location: New York City
Superlite wrote:
WHat are these canyon frames I keep hearing about? Links, specs, price, availability?

THANKS!


all i have is pictures from the world record bike, and a display at eurobike 2004. frame is said to have a STW of 108.3, a BB stiffness of 124.9 and lateral stiffness of 98.9 (i think). weight will be 968g in a 58.5; compared to the scott lateral/BB is 84/101 with a weight of 896 in a large 56cm.

the scott is lighter, but in a xl (58cm) frame size, it would be alot closer to the weight of the canyon.

price dunno, but i heard it might go for 1300 - 1500 euro's.
www.canyon.com


Attachments:
canyon specs_german.JPG
canyon specs_german.JPG [ 95.6 KiB | Viewed 807 times ]
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
Posted: Fri Sep 17, 2004 5:36 am 


Top
  
 
 Post subject: CLAIMED...
PostPosted: Fri Sep 17, 2004 6:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2002 8:35 pm
Posts: 192
CLAIMED weight is the secret here....we all know what that means! and what size isn't listed either so i wouldn't be surprised to see that bike getting much heavier once weighed for real...

the Canyon carbon is made in Scotts old manufacturing facility! Scott moved out because the guys doen there weren't able to keep up the high quality level the frame designs demanded. so they simply built up a new plant and left the old alone which was now taken over by Canyon.

for me it's as simple as that: Canyon puts several layers of fibres to the joints so they get a frame that is 100g heavier than the scott but for sure has some better stiffness readings. might be that the production frame has some better readings (but how much stiffness is needed anyway??) but the showbike definitely didn't have these numbers.

i talked long with Mr. Smolik, the main man behind the 3.8 kilo project bike) and he explained several things to me. according to him that facility lookes scary with the installations (electricity etc) sticking out of the walls and hanging down the sealing etc...he said it's like a miracle that they succeed in making such nice carbon frames down there. when asked about the shown bike he said they simply left off several layers of fibre to get the weight down, same on the fork - HA! so the frame and also the fork that were shown on that record bike were hardly rideable. not so cool:( same with the brakes that wouldn't work and will weigh over 200g in production.

the Canyon frame is a beauty nevertheless. you can't see that on any picture but the tubes are all manipulated and have some strange shapes. the rear end however looks weak to me with very thin tubes compared to the CR1.
and the final price tag of 1600 Euro for the 980g frame isn't really a present either.


Last edited by nino on Fri Sep 17, 2004 7:29 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: CLAIMED...
PostPosted: Fri Sep 17, 2004 7:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2003 12:34 pm
Posts: 1653
Location: New York City
nino wrote:
claimed weight is the sectret here....we all know what that means! and what size isn't listed either so i wouldn't be surprised to see that bike getting much heavier once weighed for real...

the Canyon carbon is made in Scotts old manufacturing facility! Scott moved out because they weren't able to have the high quality level the frame designs demanded. so they simply built up a new plant and left the old alone which was now taken over by Canyon.

it's as simple as that: Canyon puts several layers of fibres to the joints so they get a frame that is 100g heavier than the scott but for sure has some better stiffness readings.

i talked long with Mr. Smolik, the main man behind the 3.8 kilo project bike) and he explained several things to me. according to him the facility lookes scary with the installations (electricity etc) sticking out of the walls and hanging down the sealing etc...he said it's like a miracle that they succeed in making such nice carbon frames down there. when asked about the shown bike he said they simply left off several layers of fibre to get the weight down - HA! so the frame and also the fork that were shown on that record bike were hardly rideable. not so cool. same with the brakes that wouldn't work and will weigh over 200g in production.

the Canyon frame is a beauty nevertheless. you can't see that on any picture but the tubes are all manipulated and have some strange shapes. the rear end however looks weak to me with very thin tubes compared to the CR1.
and the final price tag of 1600 Euro for the 980g frame isn't really a present either.


so you think the canyon frames wont have the quality that the scott frames have?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: you didn't understand...
PostPosted: Fri Sep 17, 2004 7:25 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2002 8:35 pm
Posts: 192
the Scott is ultralight and the manufacturing process is a difficult task. a tiny error can lead to fatal failure. by adding a few layers to the Scott concept Canyon is on the sure side: no risk, better stiffness but all at a higher weight.

so expect quality of the Canyon the be 1A - but it is heavier.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Sep 17, 2004 8:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 11:00 pm
Posts: 588
I know Mr. Smolik from older times and was happy to talk to him again in F'hafen either.

The frame shown at Canyon's booth at Eurobike was indeed a one off showbike, as nino said. It's being produced in Scott's old facility and a german composite specialist in Kaiserslautern adds new parts and does more testing. He explained to me what he did over the last months/weeks/days 12 hours a day to get the bike ready. It was sometimes scary, he had to fiddle with stuff we wouldn't even think of. He told me funny stories about stuff disappearing inside the frame while bonding them inside the tubes and all that (e.g. a plate to hold the front deraillieur mount). You should have seen the headset, Mr. Smolik casted the cups from clear plastics - simply awesome!

BUT the most important thing I was talking with him was his (and mine too) opinion about stiffness of frames in general. Mr. Smolik is, and I support that 100%, an advocate of comfortable, 'ridable' frames. To quote him:

'I hope the stiffness craze reached a new and all-time high with this frame. I hope frames now become ridable again.'

We were joking about our old Vitus 979, TVT and Reynolds 753 frames (yes, Mr. Smolik is one of the few happy people to have a Reynolds Certificate for that tubeset!). But we both agreed that these fine frames are still a perfect choice for people that actually RIDE their bikes, not compare penises about their frames stiffness.

He also told me his opinion about the new way of measuring stiffness against frame wobbling in the industry. It all refers to the method of the german TOUR mag. Frames are being clamped at the rear dropouts. Then a torsional force is applied to the steering tube and you'll end up with a measurement in Nm/°.

Mr. Smolik was the old Technical Editor at TOUR mag and had a different appproach: he clamped the rear dropouts as well as the seat area and the bb area. Then a force is a applied horizontally against the steering tube. You'll end up with a deflection measured in mm.

I think that Mr. Smoliks approach is the more valid one. Think of the rider and the rear wheel as fixing points as well as the rear whel.

The problem in general is: if you build a frame that is good in one specific (hypothetical?) test, it does not nessecarily mean that the frame will perform well in reality. And Mr. Smolik thinks the same about super-stiff frames as I do: stiffness is NOT the main goal, ridability is!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Sep 17, 2004 8:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2003 12:34 pm
Posts: 1653
Location: New York City
Dr.Dos wrote:

He also told me his opinion about the new way of measuring stiffness against frame wobbling in the industry. It all refers to the method of the german TOUR mag. Frames are being clamped at the rear dropouts. Then a torsional force is applied to the steering tube and you'll end up with a measurement in Nm/°.

The problem in general is: if you build a frame that is good in one specific (hypothetical?) test, it does not nessecarily mean that the frame will perform well in reality. And Mr. Smolik thinks the same about super-stiff frames as I do: stiffness is NOT the main goal, ridability is!


thank you for your insight, helped me understand a few things. so is canyon going to have less wobble, and better ride characteristics than a scott team frame :?:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Sep 17, 2004 8:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 11:00 pm
Posts: 588
spytech wrote:
thank you for your insight, helped me understand a few things. so is canyon going to have less wobble, and better ride characteristics than a scott team frame :?:

It's even stiffer torsionally, anyhow the frame should feel more or less like a Scott CR-1 frame. Canyon just tries to reach a STW > 100 for the marketing ballyhoo - that's all.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2002 7:41 pm
Posts: 356
Location: New Mexico USA
IT seems that the Giant TCR is considered a non-contender here at WW--it hasn't even been mentioned in this thread, yet it is a true monocoque just as the Scott is, with tubes and lugs laid up and bonded in one process. I have heard it doesn't have the stiffness of the Scott, but it seems to me to be a real contender. I have checked out the Orbea Orca, which uses a similar process, but that frame is really heavy. I personally don't like "lugged" frames so the Cervelo is uninteresting. The new TCR Advance appears to offer a real weight challenge to the CR-1, with monocoque construction and clean looks.
Anyway, call me a plebian, but I think my TCR is still the value for money winner.

cheers,

_________________
dr Phil Gandini
Link to my 11.5lb Neo Ultimate


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 12:00 am
Posts: 29
Quote:
IT seems that the Giant TCR is considered a non-contender here at WW--it hasn't even been mentioned in this thread, yet it is a true monocoque just as the Scott is, with tubes and lugs laid up and bonded in one process.


I know the Giant is not a true monocoque. The front triangle is laid up as one piece and the chainstays and seatstays are bonded on later. Then they place a carbon layer over the joint after bonding but it is still a joint. I think the Scott is similar.

I have an idea on how frame stiffness is determined. Since the phrase "torsional stiffness" really refers to how efficiently pedaling forces are transmitted by the frame I think a different process would be more relevent. If the frame is clamped at the front and rear dropouts, with the steeering locked, then a vertical load is placed on a large rod going through the BB shell. This rod could be shaped like a crank arm to put the force application at a realistic point. This would measure the twisting of the frame in reaction to pedaling forces. Of course the fork stiffness would be a large factor in this so the test could be done with and without the fork to isolate the contribution of each to overall pedalling efficiency. The test without the fork would fix the frame at the rear dropout and the steerer tube and apply the load at the BB in the same way. This would hopefully lead to the construction of bikes that are stiff in reaction to pedalling forces but vertically compliant so they are comfortable.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 18, 2004 6:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 7:13 am
Posts: 2169
Location: Finland
Giant has poor fork in stock,weights ~200g more in L size and feels like wet spagetti...to compare CR1. That's why it's now ignored.

New Avance is better but BB is not so good as old. And too much €€€€ and too less sizes.

_________________
Samu @ www.signature.fi


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 19, 2004 8:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 11:00 pm
Posts: 588
Sorry dude, everything you say is way off:

Samu Ilonen wrote:
Giant has poor fork in stock,weights ~200g more in L size and feels like wet spagetti...to compare CR1.

Bullsh.it, my Composite forks weigh both 350 g uncut, < 330 g cut. And it is and feels stiff, at least as stiff as many other forks (if you like tests, TOUR mag proved with figures ...). Where do you find sub 130 g forks?

Samu Ilonen wrote:
New Avance is better but BB is not so good as old. And too much €€€€ and too less sizes.

Bullsh.it, retail for the Advanced frameset without seatdome is 2000,- EUR, not a cent more than the price of the 2005 Composite frameset.


Samu Ilonen wrote:
and too less sizes
And there are now 5 sizes ranging from S, M, M/L, over L up to XL. The gap between M and L has (finally!) been closed. Now people around 1,80m (5 ft. 11") can happily (again: finally!) choose a fitting frame. I personally would never fit on a Scott frame, size L's toptupe is too short, XL has a too tall steering tube. I wouldn't call Scott's sizing bad cuz it does not fit me as one individual.


Also: TOURs test methods of measuring the stiffness of a frame may be totally wrong in real life. Bad thing is everyone is using the same methods now (started with Principia, now Scott, Simplon and so on). Companies optimize their material in order to reach maximum 'STW' figures, nobody knows if these methods are correct and applicable in the real world. Many Pros using steel frames to get away from the stiffness craze, you are using a Ti frame, lol.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 19, 2004 10:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2003 12:34 pm
Posts: 1653
Location: New York City
Dr.Dos wrote:
Sorry dude, everything you say is way off:

Samu Ilonen wrote:
Giant has poor fork in stock,weights ~200g more in L size and feels like wet spagetti...to compare CR1.

Bullsh.it, my Composite forks weigh both 350 g uncut, < 330 g cut. And it is and feels stiff, at least as stiff as many other forks (if you like tests, TOUR mag proved with figures ...). Where do you find sub 130 g forks?


My giant fork is flexy, alot more than my friends reynolds fork.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 19, 2004 11:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2004 8:49 am
Posts: 2091
Location: Denmark
I am getting rid of my TCR Composite because it´s too flexy in the front. Just today it started to wobble in a flat section, going 50-55 km/t... The fork is bad, too.
It´s strange, I had no problems in the first 6 months. It´s like it has become "noodlelike" in the past 3 months. Is there a fatigue problem. My previous Trek 5500 had no such issues.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 19, 2004 4:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 12:00 am
Posts: 29
Quote:
I am getting rid of my TCR Composite because it´s too flexy in the front. Just today it started to wobble in a flat section, going 50-55 km/t... The fork is bad, too.
It´s strange, I had no problems in the first 6 months. It´s like it has become "noodlelike" in the past 3 months.


Did you check the integrated headset very closely for wear? Just curious why the stiffness would change. It is very unlikely the composite structure has degraded in normal use.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
Posted: Sun Sep 19, 2004 4:13 pm 


Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 46 posts ] 
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], dogg, Google [Bot], Miller and 53 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:  

   Similar Topics   Author   Replies   Views   Last post 
There are no new unread posts for this topic. New FMB Competition CX carbon tubs

in Road

LouisN

3

387

Fri Aug 22, 2014 5:02 am

tinozee View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Scott Foil and EPS

in Road

Martin.dk

13

2466

Sat Apr 19, 2014 7:12 am

ultimobici View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. TT fit for Scott Foil

in Road

efeballi

13

1848

Fri Jan 17, 2014 7:53 pm

efeballi View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Gxp bb for Scott Foil

in Road

Peter_E

6

398

Sun Oct 19, 2014 5:09 pm

Zigmeister View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Scott Foil or Colnago EPS

in Road

camber66

7

1460

Tue Dec 17, 2013 8:32 am

camber66 View the latest post


It is currently Thu Nov 27, 2014 11:31 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