Frame construction: different methods, different results?

[prendrefeu]

I'd like to know the resulting differences between the various methods of (CF) frame construction. I understand the differences between Monocoque, Lugged, and Tube-to-Tube construction methods... but I don't really understand how these methods and approaches to construction would change how the frame would perform.

Is Monocoque better or worse than Tube-to-Tube better or worse than Lugged, etc:. ? How are ride qualities enhanced (or lost) based on the type of construction method used?

What options/variations of CF frame construction exist, and how do they differ in the resulting frame performance, ignoring the tube shape and geometries?

Could any tech-savy people, or manufacturers, speak up on this topic in a purely informational way, without being a shill for their product?

I'd appreciate it. Thanks!

[prendrefeu]

Seriously...? No one has any insights on this? Can anyone point me in a good direction for knowledge?

[yourdaguy]

This is a very complex topic and even different manufacturers will argue specific methods are better or worse than other specific mehtods. Any opinions you find are likely to be just that opinions and not facts.

Basically every manufacturer that uses CF has their process and it works for them. If yo took part of one guys process and part of another's you might end up with a process that didn't work.

As far as the differnces between Monocoque and lugged and tube to tube, again there are arguments all over the map as to which is better and why. I personally don't like lugged because I don't like the fat/thin boundaries, but Parlee uses lugged and gets $5000 for a frame that it looks to me like I could make it in my garage.

[Leloby]

I just don't think many folk can be bothered with the lengthy answer required.

If you read a bit of the bumph from the manufacturers you will get a feeling for what the differences are but trial and error and personal preferences will be the best judge. Try a few different frames yourself - the second-hand market is boyant, C40's, C50's, Calfee, Parlee etc and then try out a budget Pedalforce or something before plumping for a big budget monocoque Storck or Cervelo. Look out for shops that do free trials or day-demonstrators.

Then there are the mixed setups like Independant Fabs and Merlin who do Ti/Carbon stuff. They're interesting.

Every frame is different and every size of frame is different in the handling/ride stakes so it pays to try some out and don't rely on the sales pitch or academic figures which some WW members are so keen to display.

All the best.

[lincoln]

I really don't think there's any noticeable difference in ride quality, etc, between construction methods. In the end the frameset is made up with particular characteristics in mind, this can be done with any construction method, carbon or metal. Fitting to the right geometry is the main priority, then how the frame has been designed from a ride and handling point of view would be my next priority... but everyone has different tastes. You can't say that you want the stiffest race rig available and therefore you need monocoque... as that frame could well be a aluminium frame.

[CharlesM]

The problem with trying to make blanket statements about the type of manufactureing is that some guys are better at some versions of fabrication than others...


Monocoque for some is bs because the bikes are 5 piece "mono"... and Quintacoque just sounds stupid. GOOD monocoque guys that spend "HUGE" money on molds and a lot of time in fiber orientation in setting up for molding can build a GREAT bike that genuinely provides enhanced / manipulated flex direction. And the pure monocoque means the joints are very clean and lean...

A shitty multipiece monocoque means the tubes are monocoques then wrapped and bonded (and in some cases filled with something like auto bondo and sanded and painted)... then still called "monocoque".

But then some guys build really nice multi-piece monocoque's with a lot of work going into the tube to tube build up....




Good Lug guys like Serotta (custom lugs), Parlee (who are kinda a combination of lugs and tube to tube) and Nick Crumpton (straight up tube to tube) use extremely high quality/ high end designed tube sets and then spend an absolute sh!tload of time prepping and finishing things to the point where no material is wasted what so ever...

No bondo, no extra material because they couldn't make high enough detail or pressure in a joint, no extra epoxy or adhesive dripping out of poorly machined joints and left to dry...


These guys build bikes that can be further tuned just in the build process to build a fitted and manipulated bike, spec'd to the rider in a way that no off the shelf monocoque can.


Colnago build one hell of a nice lugged bike as stock (in 22 sizes...). Look build an extremely nice combination / technique bike...

Trek make a hell of a nice multicoque in the new Madone.

Scott builds a bike with extremely low weight and high stiffness at a reasonably good proce, but the Parlee Z1sl is in the same weight class and has a smoother ride...




Trying to blanket statement about build technique just doesn't fly any more than blanket statements about a bike being better or worse based on material alone... as there are great and shitty bikes from virtually all materials.

[coloclimber]

+ pez

Some of my favorite bikes were lugged looks, whereas their multi-oque just didnt do it for me.

I still yearn for a Crumpton some day.

[Phill P]

As PEZ said, there are damn good bikes out there that use any or all of the techniques.
Tube to tube seems to be the best value for money, but then some frames are making mono "units" (top tube and head tube, or down tube and BB shell etc) then using tube to tube.

It all comes down to the final execution of many many details.

Buy the bike you like the most.