Ride Report on Storck Scenario 1.1

Discuss light weight issues concerning road bikes & parts.
User avatar
cadence90
Posts: 1695
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 1:52 am

by cadence90

Nice stuff.
I'm curious where you're getting the weights on the tune stem and seatpost though?
I wonder if on a 59 frame these components will actually weigh what you list?
"Gimondi è un eroe umano, che viene sconfitto ma che continua la sua corsa fino a tornare a vincere." - Enrico Ruggeri

by Weenie


User avatar
martin
Posts: 950
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 9:49 am
Location: München
Contact:

by martin

morrisond wrote:From what I know, Storck, Scott and Kuota all come from the same Taiwan factory.

That is correct, but that doesn't say much about familiarities between these frames.
That they come from the same factory only means that the frames are built with the same (hopefully high) standard and expertise in working with carbon fibre.

The same company very possibly also makes "OEM" frames of *their* design, but for Storck and Scott i am positive that the design of the frame: which material to choose where, how many layers to use, how to arrange the fibres in what part of the frame and the shape itself is subject to the design made by Storck or Denk/Scott (Don't know about Kuota).

At least that's what Markus Storck said recently in another forum.

It more depends on which one you like the looks of best.

I disagree. One *should* take the frame that one liked best when testriding it...

Martin
Snowman and Strong Walker
Scott Sc
my old stuff
my new stuff

morrisond
Posts: 770
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 8:34 pm

by morrisond

I got the weight of the stem from the listings(I'm using a 95mm as well) and figured out the weight of the seatpost through some interpolation. The weight of the 31.6 340 post is 197 the 31.6 is 420 is 230. Mine will be cut to about 270 mm. Since the only difference between the two listed posts of the length of the tube, I calculated that 10 mm = about 4g. Mine will be cut 70mm so 70 mm = -28G from 197 is actually about 169. I was being generous and calling it 175g.

morrisond
Posts: 770
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 8:34 pm

by morrisond

Well since I'm in Canada I didn't have that option to test ride anything. Scott's won't even be available in North America for another 6 months. Plus I like having the matching Storck cranks and Fork. Actually it was because of me that Storck got it's first dealer in Canada, and I have the first "official" Storck USA Bike in Canada.

Luckily the bike rides great and has great handling. I love it, at least compared to my old Trek 5200.

veldt01
Posts: 58
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2004 5:50 pm

by veldt01

Returning to the point the stiffness of a Scott and a Storck frame

Tour magazin tested and the results where

The stiffnes to weight ratio off the Scott CR-1 pro showed a figure of 85 Nm/kg
It's fork 85 N/MM

The Storck scenario C 1.1 scores 67 Nm/kg
It's stilletto fork 81 N/MM

These figures just proved what I already experienced: the Scott is a much stiffer than the Storck. There is not much difference between the Scott pro and team issue (the last only slightly stiffer).
The Storck 0.9 on the other hand is much less stiff compared to the 1.1 This is no problem at all since it was made for very light riders.

User avatar
LAN
Posts: 241
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 11:43 am
Contact:

by LAN

Well, a higher STW doesn't mean a higher stiffness. The Storck C1.1 is heavier than the Scott CR1.

I don't know the exact weight of these frames in similar sizes(should be in the Tour test), but here is what I get:

Storck C1.1: STW= 67Nm/kg, Weight= 1150g (estimated),
Stiffness: 67 X 1.15= 77,05Nm

Scott CR1: STW= 85Nm/kg, Weight= 888g (Nino's frame),
Stiffness: 85 X 0.888= 75,48Nm

So the Storck should be slightly stiffer than the Scott, or have I misunderstood this??

Regards
LAN

veldt01
Posts: 58
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2004 5:50 pm

by veldt01

I should look up what the article says about stiffness. But here the CR1 pro was tested which weights just under 1000 gramms in the frame size S and I thought Medium or large was tested (should be close to 1050 gramm). The weight of the Storck sounds about right.

User avatar
LAN
Posts: 241
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 11:43 am
Contact:

by LAN

Ok, I didn't know that it was the Pro model tested, so the numbers I wrote are wrong, but I was just making the point about the difference of STW and Stiffness.

I'm not very good in german, but as I understand the STW is:

(BB stiffness + Headtube stiffnes)/2/Frame weight

The weight measured by Tour should make it possible to find the stiffest frame.

Regards
LAN

veldt01
Posts: 58
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2004 5:50 pm

by veldt01

I agree this should be possible. The only (small) difference I spot beween both frames is that with the Storck while sprinting the rearwheel touchess the brake pads (campa Eurus), this doesnt happen with the same wheel in the Scott. furthermore there is more flex at the front end of the storck.
The strange thing is that the storck is more affected by bad roadconditions and can be quite harsch compared to the Scott, But more and more I'm convinced that this caracteristic is caused by the (straight) fork (stilletto) and not by the frame at all.

User avatar
mrowkoob
Posts: 1488
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2004 7:35 pm
Location: Middle of nowhere, EU

by mrowkoob

LAN wrote:Well, a higher STW doesn't mean a higher stiffness. The Storck C1.1 is heavier than the Scott CR1.

I don't know the exact weight of these frames in similar sizes(should be in the Tour test), but here is what I get:

Storck C1.1: STW= 67Nm/kg, Weight= 1150g (estimated),
Stiffness: 67 X 1.15= 77,05Nm

Scott CR1: STW= 85Nm/kg, Weight= 888g (Nino's frame),
Stiffness: 85 X 0.888= 75,48Nm

So the Storck should be slightly stiffer than the Scott, or have I misunderstood this??

Regards
LAN


Interesting math you present, however:
Tour tested the Scott team issue frame in 2003 dont remember what issue and it had the frame STW 91.2 Nm/kg as opposed to the Scott cr-pro frame with STW 85.
Using your formula 91.2X0.888=80.98
Also actully the STW numbers on the Scott frames are from a size large frame weighing 896.5 grams using that weight in your formula you get 81.76 Nm/kg.

morrisond
Posts: 770
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 8:34 pm

by morrisond

The weight of my 59 1.1 was 1272 including bottle cage bolts and bearings for the headset.

morrisond
Posts: 770
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 8:34 pm

by morrisond

Anyway you look at it the differences are small between the two. There is a probably a larger difference in manufacturing tolerances if you compared 10 of the same bike to each other

User avatar
spytech
Posts: 1693
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2003 12:34 pm
Location: New York City
Contact:

by spytech

BB stiffness means alot for me, since i like to pound the bike on the uphills. i have not felt my rear rim touch my pads, but the giant rear end is very compact and stiff.

but i would not mind trying out this bike from: http://www.spin-system.de/

Image


stw 100nm/kg - guidance head rigidity of 100nm

anyone know the stw of the giant TCR?

morrisond
Posts: 770
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 8:34 pm

by morrisond

Well I weigh 220 and used to rub the brakes with Krysium Sl's on my Trek 5200(but not with my Open Pro's with Chris King Hub). I have Zero Problem with Brake block rubbing on my Storck with Ambrosio Excellight Rims and No-Name straight pull hub training wheels. I'm guessing his Euro's were slightly out of true or the brakes are set up differently. The Storck is damn stiff in the Bottom Bracket as stiff as the Stock Scenario Pro Aluminum according to Markus Storck. The bike just flies when you you really crank it up.

by Weenie


veldt01
Posts: 58
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2004 5:50 pm

by veldt01

Finally to end this discussion about stiffness. Both the Scott and the Storck are stiff enough for taller/heavy/strong riders (small/light riders won't have a problem at all).
Both the Scott and Storck where on top of the test in Tour (together with the Basso Diamante) so these are quite good frames.
Since I still own a Scenario Comp (BB stiffness is equal to the Pro) as winter bike I can tell you BB stiffness of a C 1.1 in nowhere near a good as that of a Comp/Pro. The competition BB stiffness is over 100 and the frame in general can be classified as very fast but too stiff/harsh to ride on less than good roads.
Since my weight is 170 at least and sprinting (53/12) and time trial is my speciallity stiffness is critical to me but the storck won't cause me any problem (it was only for comparison).

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post