Carbon road frames, what options, threaded BB?

[Duck!]

I've ridden a lot of bikes, carbon, aluminium, steel, magnesium and titanium of various grades & alloys for diagnostic purposes at work, and I can assure you that carbon is consistently a smoother-riding material than aluminium, even taking into account varying tube profiles and geometries (and being customers' bikes, often not the right fit!). There is far less difference between the various grades of aluminium or carbon than there is between the materials.

[Bentnose]

I'll consider the Prolite's, I'm still steering towards carbon though, plenty of time to make a decision.

Just to let you know, I had a problem with the Pro Lite Aurelia I suggested above and Pro Lite sent me a new frame without any fuss at no cost to me.

ball bearing, what was the problem with the Aurelia, I'm assuming Pro Lite UK replaced it?

[Bentnose]

Turns out its Hongfu and Dengfu, I'll check out some threads on it.

My brother has the FM098 (Venge rip off). I've ridden it and it feels quite good. You can pick and choose your colours. He went through an Aussie company, Shock Sports Australia - http://shocksports.com.au/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; If you want some local backing (i.e. if something does go wrong, they can help you out without dealing directly with the manufacturer in China.) I think you'd be looking at about $700-$800 all up delivered. I'll be definitely considering them for my next bike.

So Gav!nI looked at the Shocksports website, not much info about the bikes, start from $1000 it says on their Facebook page, I'm assuming raw carbon and paint is extra. Do you know what other brands/models their frames are marketed under? I'd be interested in some reviews, though maybe one generic open mold frame is the same as the other. I like that you can have them custom painted and named.

[Duck!]

I know them, a buddy of mine used to race on one. Pretty sure they are a 6000 series alloy which is bacially pretty heavy compared to the more modern alloys and the 6000 series alloys deliver a really harsh ride.

Frames made from 7000 series alloy are completely different. There is zero comparison, the tubing is a lot thinner (not much thicker than a coke can in places), weight is less and the ride quality (stiffness) is about on par with a mid to high end carbon frame.

Having done some research completely isolated from marketing departments, I call bunkum. 6000-series alloys are softer than 7000 series due to the properties imparted by the alloying agents. They're actually also slightly lighter. However that extra softness of the frame can can accentuate aluminium's natural tendency to fatigue with acculuated flex cycles, so frames made from 6000-series, especially 6061 tend to be somewhat overbuilt. The more rigid 7000-series alloys can be drawn into thinner tubes, so frames can be lighter even though the material has greater specific gravity. The nett result is that the 7000-series bike will be slightly lighter (therefore more lively), but the trade-offs for durability mean that there's stuff-all real-world difference in ride quality.

[ball bearing]

I'll consider the Prolite's, I'm still steering towards carbon though, plenty of time to make a decision.

Just to let you know, I had a problem with the Pro Lite Aurelia I suggested above and Pro Lite sent me a new frame without any fuss at no cost to me.

ball bearing, what was the problem with the Aurelia, I'm assuming Pro Lite UK replaced it?

Creaky seat tube. Pro Lite Taiwan sent the replacement. I really am very pleased with the bike, it is very nicely designed and constructed plus the customer service is the best I have experienced.

[Bentnose]

Creaky seat tube. Pro Lite Taiwan sent the replacement. I really am very pleased with the bike, it is very nicely designed and constructed plus the customer service is the best I have experienced.

So ball bearing, what was the process for warranty, did someone look at it as confirmation? Did you send the old one back at your cost/their cost? Also how would you rate how the bike rides, is it fast steering very responsive like say a crit bike or more laid back for stability at speed and comfortable on long rides (which is what I'm after). Would you say the ride is a comfortable ride/absorbent of bumps and road chatter (although that depends on what else you have to compare it to)?

[MattyK]

Just out of curiosity, to those with the experience: how much difference is there between an entry level carbon frame, and a more expensive one?

For example, would a solution to the OP's question be to buy an entry level carbon bike (say $1200-1500), strip it, and rebuild with higher spec components? Or are you actually better off buying a $800-1000 bare frameset (or a $600 open mould one) and building up from there?

<edit>for example: here is a $1200 "Italian" frameset that is absolutely identical (apart from an uglier colour scheme) to the frame on my complete $1399 Apollo...

[jacks1071]

I know them, a buddy of mine used to race on one. Pretty sure they are a 6000 series alloy which is bacially pretty heavy compared to the more modern alloys and the 6000 series alloys deliver a really harsh ride.

Frames made from 7000 series alloy are completely different. There is zero comparison, the tubing is a lot thinner (not much thicker than a coke can in places), weight is less and the ride quality (stiffness) is about on par with a mid to high end carbon frame.

Having done some research completely isolated from marketing departments, I call bunkum. 6000-series alloys are softer than 7000 series due to the properties imparted by the alloying agents. They're actually also slightly lighter. However that extra softness of the frame can can accentuate aluminium's natural tendency to fatigue with acculuated flex cycles, so frames made from 6000-series, especially 6061 tend to be somewhat overbuilt. The more rigid 7000-series alloys can be drawn into thinner tubes, so frames can be lighter even though the material has greater specific gravity. The nett result is that the 7000-series bike will be slightly lighter (therefore more lively), but the trade-offs for durability mean that there's stuff-all real-world difference in ride quality.

You can't compare a 6000-series alloy and a 7000-series alloy bicycle frame by looking at a material properties data sheet...

They aren't built the same, as you mention the 7000-series has much thinner tubes - that's why they are so light (lighter than a lot of entry level carbon frames) and I guess the thin tubing is why they have better compliance than a 6000-series?

6000-series alloy maybe softer than 7000-series, that doesn't make a 6000-series more compliant however - maybe because the tubes are so thick?

Which frame(s) have you ridden that are made from 7000-series?

Someone buying a frame made of any alloy need not be too concerned about reliability - they hands down have a significantly lower failure rate than carbon, working in a bike shop I'd be amazed if you didn't agree with that...

[Duck!]

They aren't built the same, as you mention the 7000-series has much thinner tubes - that's why they are so light (lighter than a lot of entry level carbon frames) and I guess the thin tubing is why they have better compliance than a 6000-series?

6000-series alloy maybe softer than 7000-series, that doesn't make a 6000-series more compliant however - maybe because the tubes are so thick?

Yes there may be some gain in compliance due to less material, but 7000-series alloys are inherently more rigid than 6000-series, so the two factors basically cancel each other out in the end, so there's little difference in actual feel. Frame geometry plays a bigger part.

Which frame(s) have you ridden that are made from 7000-series?

. Geez, that's digging into the cranial archives..... Numerous Meridas & Avantis (probably out of the Merida factory), maybe some Specializeds.... I've had nearly 10,000 services through my workshop in 10 years, and although I only ride a small proportion of them it's still a lot of bikes, and my memory isn't good enough to remember them all!

Someone buying a frame made of any alloy need not be too concerned about reliability - they hands down have a significantly lower failure rate than carbon, working in a bike shop I'd be amazed if you didn't agree with that...

I disagree with that too. While I've probably seen more crash-damaged carbon, fatigue-related failures are more common in aluminium frames.

[jacks1071]

They aren't built the same, as you mention the 7000-series has much thinner tubes - that's why they are so light (lighter than a lot of entry level carbon frames) and I guess the thin tubing is why they have better compliance than a 6000-series?

6000-series alloy maybe softer than 7000-series, that doesn't make a 6000-series more compliant however - maybe because the tubes are so thick?

Yes there may be some gain in compliance due to less material, but 7000-series alloys are inherently more rigid than 6000-series, so the two factors basically cancel each other out in the end, so there's little difference in actual feel. Frame geometry plays a bigger part.

Which frame(s) have you ridden that are made from 7000-series?

. Geez, that's digging into the cranial archives..... Numerous Meridas & Avantis (probably out of the Merida factory), maybe some Specializeds.... I've had nearly 10,000 services through my workshop in 10 years, and although I only ride a small proportion of them it's still a lot of bikes, and my memory isn't good enough to remember them all!

Someone buying a frame made of any alloy need not be too concerned about reliability - they hands down have a significantly lower failure rate than carbon, working in a bike shop I'd be amazed if you didn't agree with that...

I disagree with that too. While I've probably seen more crash-damaged carbon, fatigue-related failures are more common in aluminium frames.

So you ride a bike around the block to test the gears work and form an opinion of it?

Instead of quoting data from a material properties sheet you should try and ride some of the frames you claim to know so much about...

[Duck!]

I find material data sheets & seat of the pants feel to be more reliable & accurate than marketing spin....

A test ride isn't about testing gears, I'm confident enough in that to not require road testing. A test ride is about diagnosing "a noise", which is a very imprecise description of a problem. As such a ride is at least several kilometres, with much closer than normal attention being given to the bike. You can get a lot of feedback in a short distance when you tune into it.

[ball bearing]

Creaky seat tube. Pro Lite Taiwan sent the replacement. I really am very pleased with the bike, it is very nicely designed and constructed plus the customer service is the best I have experienced.

So ball bearing, what was the process for warranty, did someone look at it as confirmation? Did you send the old one back at your cost/their cost? Also how would you rate how the bike rides, is it fast steering very responsive like say a crit bike or more laid back for stability at speed and comfortable on long rides (which is what I'm after). Would you say the ride is a comfortable ride/absorbent of bumps and road chatter (although that depends on what else you have to compare it to)?

Pro Lite arranged the entire process. I supplied a video of the noise being made while I pushed the seat post down.

The frame is designed for racing. I do not find much difference, comfort wise, between this bike and my other 'laid back' bikes. I run DA c24 wheels on this bike which make for a smoother ride than when running less compliant wheels.

[Bentnose]

Just out of curiosity, to those with the experience: how much difference is there between an entry level carbon frame, and a more expensive one?

For example, would a solution to the OP's question be to buy an entry level carbon bike (say $1200-1500), strip it, and rebuild with higher spec components? Or are you actually better off buying a $800-1000 bare frameset (or a $600 open mould one) and building up from there?

<edit>for example: here is a $1200 "Italian" frameset that is absolutely identical (apart from an uglier colour scheme) to the frame on my complete $1399 Apollo...

Buying a complete bike and then stripping it for the frame isn't something i'd want to do, the other way around, maybe. Using the Apollo as an example, if I stripped it and fitted a full Ultegra groupset and some Dura Ace wheels, which is about what I'm intending to use, it still would look very similar to that original $1399 Apollo. If you buy something that is less common or can only be bought as a frameset then you end up with something unique and even it is not high end, a little exclusive.

[Homo Suburbiensis]

Do you know which alloy your current frame is made from?

I'm not sure, it is a 2005 Trek SLR bought as a frameset, just the Alpha SLR Aluminium, like this one http://www.bikepedia.com/quickbike/Bike ... model=1500 but it doesn't say 1500 on it.

I know them, a buddy of mine used to race on one. Pretty sure they are a 6000 series alloy which is bacially pretty heavy compared to the more modern alloys and the 6000 series alloys deliver a really harsh ride.

Frames made from 7000 series alloy are completely different. There is zero comparison, the tubing is a lot thinner (not much thicker than a coke can in places), weight is less and the ride quality (stiffness) is about on par with a mid to high end carbon frame.

snip...

I personally have high-end frames made from alloy, carbon, titanium and bamboo - there isn't a huge difference in the ride quality of high-end frames regardless of the material. Done right you can use any of these materials to make a high-end frame.

Biggest difference between them all is the price.

FAR OUT I JUST TYPED A HUGE RESPONSE AND I ACCIDENTALLY REFRESHED THE PAGE!!! here we go again......

I don't think it is fair to simply compare materials (alloys), just as you say you can not simply say carbon is better than alloy. As an example, an alloy frame that has gotten very good reviews is the Giant TCR SLR frame which is made from 6011A alloy (Called Aluxx slr by giant) and it weighs only 1050 grams (medium). The CAAD10 (probs considered the best aluminium frame) is also made from 6xxx alloy (6069) and has gotten excellent reviews. So 6xxx alloys can definitely be used to make very light, stiff yet comfortable bikes.

Personally, I think that the tube shaping/ design has much more to do with the ride quality then the type of allow used. Both the CAAD10 and TCR SLR frames are made through hydroforming, I have had a good look at these frames in the shop and honestly if the welds were smoothed out a bit you would have no idea they were aluminium frames, they look like carbon frames. I believe this is the main reason for the success of carbon (ability of tube shapes to be controlled/manipulated) and also for the resurgence in these high end good riding aluminium frames (Specialized allez is another example). Is the pro lite cuneo made through hydroforming/other methods to maipulate tube shapes? (this is a genuine question, not rhetorical)

As another example, Ribble sell some very cheap sub $300 7046 alloy frames, and you can't necessarily say they are better (or worse) than the 6xxx frames above without doing a direct comparison ride. As a side note I have noticed that the ribble ultralite has exactly the same geometry of the cuneo... are these the same frames but made with different alloy?

Regarding entry level carbon frames (and even the cheap chinese carbon ones) I think when carbon first started to become popular the lower end frames were mostly flexy (as you described) and often had a dead feeling to them. However entry level carbon has come a long way, most lower end carbon is very good nowadays. (Check out the positive review on this site on the cell akuna... and that is probably one of the cheapest carbon bike now)


Back to the Cuneo, I really think you should get the frame reviewed by an independent website/magazine. It would be really good if you could get cyclingtips.com.au or some place like that to do a proper review. This would not only help get the pro lite brand out there but really clear up a lot of ambiguity around the cuneo frame. I was once very interested in this frame and searched so long in Google but couldn't find much useful info. Not suprisingly given the low weight, many people who had posted about it online were on the weight weenies forum, however no one really commented on the ride quality but rather focused on dropping weight (naturally). The other odd mentions of the frame across the internet have been mainly from people upgrading from lower end bikes, so the feedback hasn't been too useful in comparing with other frames. The only proper, good comparison I have found by someone online has been on one of the most popular pro lite cuneo threads on weightweenies (http://weightweenies.starbike.com/forum ... 6&start=45" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) but it was not positive, compared to his cheap chinese carbon frame he said there was "much less vibration dampening, Entire bike feels less solid as a "platform", Felt less responsive to accelerations/sprint".(page 4). Also I saw a cuneo for the first time recently and I would have to say the tube shapes have been the most unconventional I have seen, so a good review done by a independent, reputable source like cyclingtips or similar would be really good and would make me consider buying the frame in the future.

[usernameforme]

I've ridden a lot of bikes, carbon, aluminium, steel, magnesium and titanium of various grades & alloys

Just wondering, were the frames all from the same era? For instance, there aren't too many modern magnesium frames around - comparing that to a modern cf frame is a bit unfair since cf has had 10 years longer as a technology to mature. And having a look at old alloy frames doesn't say much as alloy has changed alot (S-works Allez, TCR SLR, Falco Saker etc.) Do you have any experiences with high end modern alloy frames?

Back to the Cuneo, I really think you should get the frame reviewed by an independent website/magazine. It would be really good if you could get cyclingtips.com.au or some place like that to do a proper review.

BNA have a review of the Cuneo up against the Galileo (Alloy VS CF) it reviewed favrouably. http://www.bicycles.net.au/2009/10/bike ... eo-part-1/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

They were specced with different wheels, though the reviewer comments:

But which material does dampen vibration the best? The truth is, it doesn’t matter. Technically speaking, steel (the supposed benchmark for a comfortable ride) has some of the worst vibration dampening characteristics of any material! Comfort is not the same as ‘vibration dampening’ and this is a topic we’ll get into in more detail in another feature.

The only proper, good comparison I have found by someone online has been on one of the most popular pro lite cuneo threads on weightweenies

It's a good comparison - but it isn't like for like:

Also, He was using an Edge 1.0 carbon fork - while super light, it doesn't match the rake of the fork pro-lite spec. The edge fork has a rake of 43mm whilst Pro-Lite spec a rake of 45mm.

And, if we're being fair, he's using different wheels too - the Kinlin XR-200 rims used on the pro-lite are never going to win awards for stiffness. They're narrow, which would result in a harsher ride vs the wider rims used on his FM102. So we have a set-up that isn't as stiff and not as compliant. The pro-lite starts with a disadvantage here. There's another thread discussing the benefits of 23mm rims - see that for more info.

Finally, he also comments that the frame quality on the FM102 wasn't so good. Not saying they're all like that, but it's not a very good start if the dropouts are not aligned on your frame.

[jacks1071]

Back to the Cuneo, I really think you should get the frame reviewed by an independent website/magazine. It would be really good if you could get cyclingtips.com.au or some place like that to do a proper review. This would not only help get the pro lite brand out there but really clear up a lot of ambiguity around the cuneo frame.

Also I saw a cuneo for the first time recently and I would have to say the tube shapes have been the most unconventional I have seen, so a good review done by a independent, reputable source like cyclingtips or similar would be really good and would make me consider buying the frame in the future.

We're getting some more reviews done, Bicycling Australia were kind enough to review the Merano A25W for us which should be published next issue.

Frames are a little more tricky to get a review done on as I'm not selling them as a complete bike. They go generally to experienced cyclists who are willing to build their own bike up from scratch.

Pro-Lite have their own tubing factory which allows them some freedom, they also make tubing for other companies and industries.

There is a write up here on the Cuneo:

They compare the Galileo to the Cuneo. The Galileo is a discontinued product but I'd say the ride it offered would be similar to most of the current day blank Chinese frames so the comments would be fairly relevant if you were considering a carbon vs high-end alloy bike.

http://www.bicycles.net.au/2009/10/bike ... eo-part-1/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Cuneo has been further developed since then into the GP model which has a stiffer and lighter front end, Pro-Lite are still developing their alloy frames whereas most companies have ceased production at least on what I'd consider to be a high-end alloy frame.. I think Cannondale, Canyon and Bianchi are still making really nice alloy frames - and Pro-Lite

[Homo Suburbiensis]

@usernameforme

The fork actually has 45mm rake, it is discussed on the last page. Also the bike components seem largely the same? I think the chinese carbon one was stripped to build the cuneo. I am seeing Farsports 38mm carbon wheels.

@Jacks1071

Also, If the frame gets updated soon, any chance you can ask the designer/manufacturer to put more clearance for the tyres. Another thread from weightweenies said that he was only able to get max 23mm tyres in (using wide rims).

[usernameforme]

@Suburbiensis
My mistake - I looked at the spec sheet on the first page and assumed that it was the same till the end.

Still though, my point about the material having little to do with the ride quality still stands.

@Jacks1071 - add Falco to your list of really nice alloy frames, their Saker models look the biz.

I think we strayed alot off the topic. In terms of options for Carbon road frames you're quite spoilt for choice. Look at velobuild or any other chinese reseller's page and you'll have plenty of models to choose from. There's a few models that have been around for a while and have a pretty strong track record. My advice would be to pick the ones that have the stack and reach to suit your build, then pick the ones you like the shape of the most.

[Bentnose]

What about the Falco bike carbon Peregin Kamm Edition, I'd assume it is out of my price range if the Saker is listed as $899, I wonder if Falco Australia can get the Saker in? I guess the Saker would be considered modern high end aluminium, with all of the arguments going on about aluminium vs carbon fibre, I though I'd ask, who else besides Pro-Lite and Falco produce alu frames of note with threaded BB, no press fit please.

[jacks1071]

@Jacks1071

Also, If the frame gets updated soon, any chance you can ask the designer/manufacturer to put more clearance for the tyres. Another thread from weightweenies said that he was only able to get max 23mm tyres in (using wide rims).

Up to and including the 52cm size the widest tyre you can fit is 23mm, if you run a wide rim there is generally no need to go wider than 23mm on the tyre. The Merano A25W wheels fit on them nicely with 23mm tyre. Even with a 23mm tyre don't be surprised if you get a rub mark on the seat tube, the upside of the short seat stays is an awesome handling, very responsive frame.

The larger sizes, 54+ have a little more clearance.

[usernameforme]

Falco make great frames, BNA also has a feature article on them.

The saker IMO would have more design features than the Cuneo, I'm just saying that because falco published a blog on their frame design, which showed how much trouble they went to designing their frames.

[jacks1071]

Falco make great frames, BNA also has a feature article on them.

The saker IMO would have more design features than the Cuneo, I'm just saying that because falco published a blog on their frame design, which showed how much trouble they went to designing their frames.

Marketing does not equal R & D.

Look closely at the tubing used in the Cuneo, you might need to look at photo's of a white frame to see it properly as the black tends to cover up a lot of detail.

[jacks1071]

These guys make really nice Magnesium frames.

http://www.paketabike.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Personally I wouldn't go for Magnesium as I've owned several motorbike parts made from the material and corrosion is always an issue. If you don't paint it then its maybe not so bad as at least you can buff it out rather than having paint flaking off.

[usernameforme]

Marketing does not equal R & D.

No it doesnt - I mentioned that earlier. This isn't marketing, it's just transparency. The foundations of this company are transparency - they tell you everything about their design goals and how they've achieved them/the compromises they've made.

[Bentnose]

@Jacks1071

Also, If the frame gets updated soon, any chance you can ask the designer/manufacturer to put more clearance for the tyres. Another thread from weightweenies said that he was only able to get max 23mm tyres in (using wide rims).

Up to and including the 52cm size the widest tyre you can fit is 23mm, if you run a wide rim there is generally no need to go wider than 23mm on the tyre. The Merano A25W wheels fit on them nicely with 23mm tyre. Even with a 23mm tyre don't be surprised if you get a rub mark on the seat tube, the upside of the short seat stays is an awesome handling, very responsive frame.

The larger sizes, 54+ have a little more clearance.

So are you saying I could fit a 25mm tyre on a Cuneo? Also when do you expect to have white ones in a large?