OH SNAP!!! Scott CR1 just got some competition!

[Superlite]

Check, cha check check, check, a check it out! (Beastie Boys in cas you didn't get it )

http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2004/ ... 25bay-full

[PsyDoc]

...the Cervelo Bayonne will be $3999 for the frame only, I think it less competition for the Scott.

[Superlite]

Price wise, but in the world of counting grams alot of people don't really care too much about price.

[zoey]

Nice!

[Samu Ilonen]

I think that nicest frame that I have seen!

That with Record Carbon Carbon cranks+parts and Lightweight wheels,Ax-lightness saddle,F-99 stem+Smolke bar, TIME carbon pedals....too sweet!

What is the price for frame?

[Trek/VW]

What is the price for frame?

...the Cervelo Bayonne will be $3999 for the frame only, I think it less competition for the Scott.

[martin]

...the Cervelo Bayonne will be $3999 for the frame only, I think it less competition for the Scott.

given these tiny tubing diameters, i find it hard to believe it will match the Scott's stiffness.

but we'll wait for the lab results.

[Superlite]

given these tiny tubing diameters, i find it hard to believe it will match the Scott's stiffness.

but we'll wait for the lab results.

You forget. Unlike metals tubing diameter does not directly relate to stiffness with carbon. Look at schmolke handelbars, for the same reason they do not offer oversize 31.8mm diameter, because the oversize diameter does nothing to stiffness, but adds weight!

[divve]

It's simple physics. All things being equal (as much as it's possible) larger diameter will add stiffness regardless whether it's aluminum or carbon.

[Superlite]

It's simple physics. All things being equal (as much as it's possible) larger diameter will add stiffness regardless whether it's aluminum or carbon.

Yeah, but everything has an optimal diameter for strength to weight. Carbon isn't really affected by diameter. It's more in the layup then anything else.

[Dr.Dos]

Is there any proof for the claimed weight? Don't think so.

[nicrump]

and remember when they introduced the r2.5? was supposed to be 2.2lb, more like 2.6+ and now they wont even advertise the weight.

it is hard to imagine they can do an 850 gram while still having bonded joints. that added glue is heavy.

[martin]

and remember when they introduced the r2.5? was supposed to be 2.2lb, more like 2.6+ and now they wont even advertise the weight.

it is hard to imagine they can do an 850 gram while still having bonded joints. that added glue is heavy.

The C1 is no monocoque either.
@superlite: Divve is right the the laws of physique apply to carbon tubes as well. the geometrical component of inertia (thanks dict.leo.org ) is still the same. On the other hand you may be right that with sophisticated use of weaving patterns and different fibres in the same tube you might produce more stiffness, but tubes built this way would still be stiffer if one made them in a larger diameter.

It may be engineers disease, but i trust neutral tests more than marekting folk. The whole b*llocks on the cyclingnews website about the bike beeing too light so it could only be used in the TT... and then the rather traditional TVT/Look-like carbon lugs, i dunno.

Martin

[nicrump]

and remember when they introduced the r2.5? was supposed to be 2.2lb, more like 2.6+ and now they wont even advertise the weight.

it is hard to imagine they can do an 850 gram while still having bonded joints. that added glue is heavy.

The C1 is no monocoque either.
Martin

You are correct but it’s not a secondary bond as is the cervelo. The cervelo is glued tube and lug, lug in one hand, tube in the other, slap in a bunch of glue and slam it in the jig. In order for this to work, there has to be significant glue line for the bond. This glue line is heavy.

The C1 on the other hand is tube glued together (simply tacked) and the lug created over that joint. This is technically still a secondary bond but laminating the lug directly over the tube creates a direct bond. Much less glue and zero bond line unlike with cervelo, trek, c40 and so on.

I honestly believe given today’s technology and materials, it will nearly impossible to beat the c1 construction method when considering weight, stiffness and durability. They have the advantage of using roll wrapped tubing which is by far better quality than any bladder form tube could ever offer.

There are some great bladder bikes (monocoque) out there but if there were ever a flaw, you would never see it unless you cut or scanned the frame. With roll wrapped tubes, the tube can be inspected prior and with laminating over the joint, what you see is what you get.

[spytech]

How about the new canyon ultimate Carbon F10 frame which is about 25% stiffer than the scott, anyone know the process they use? which is suppose to have a patent.