Lugged carbon v monocoque

Pross

Just out of interest, in the case of all other things being equal - e.g. same grade of carbon, same manufacturer, same price point of frame - what are the pros and cons of lugged carbon frames against a mono frame (e.g. weight difference, strength, frame life)?

gundersen

none as far as I know (other than a very slight increase in weight)

it's just soooo modern today to have a monocoque frame

I like my lugged frame because it looks cool

Chip \'oyler

You can have a lugged frame made to measure - monocoques are made in different sizes.

Think of lugged ones as a Saville Road suit - monocoques as 'off the peg'

Pross

So second hand there wouldn't be any real difference either way?

Monty Dog

In the opinion of some, the best carbon frames are the likes of the Colnago EPS, Time VXR, Look 595, Calfee, Parlee...all of which happen to be lugged construction. There was a recent discussion on Weight Weenies and opinion is that moncoques whilst potentially lighter and stiffer generally don't offer the same level of comfort or feel. What I don't understand is why monocoques, with their cheaper assembly / construction often are priced the same?

andrewgturnbull

Monty Dog wrote:

In the opinion of some, the best carbon frames are the likes of the Colnago EPS, Time VXR, Look 595, Calfee, Parlee...all of which happen to be lugged construction. There was a recent discussion on Weight Weenies and opinion is that moncoques whilst potentially lighter and stiffer generally don't offer the same level of comfort or feel. What I don't understand is why monocoques, with their cheaper assembly / construction often are priced the same?

Hi Monty Dog.

Did the posters on ww explain the rational behind this comfort/feel thing?

Structurally I would have thought that a monocoque would be superior? There's no reason why differential fibre laying or the use of directional sheets couldn't be incorporated into a monocoque mould.

Personally having put a lot of miles on a monocoque and glued/lugged carbon frame I can't tell the difference. My monocoque is significantly stiffer, but it looks like it's been designed that way.

Cheers, Andy

Chip \'oyler

They're probably saying that lugged is more comfortable because most of them might have had them custom made, which would mean they should be made to fit the rider, and hence fit them like a glove. Whereas with a monocoque the rider has to fit himself to the frame.

Steveorow

Guys dont shoot the messenger here . Here is what LOOK says about lugged frames ( I have a 585 )

"Building an extremely light tubeset provides the added benefit of liveliness, but an overly
light tubeset can also result in less overall vertical compliancy. Finding the ideal tubeset geometry to achieve the ideal ride quality becomes much easier when you have an added component of lug tuning to provide the lateral stiffness enhancement. The bottom bracket and head lug components on the 585 and 595 for example, are formed via LOOK’s proprietary forged carbon technique.
The bottom bracket is compressed or “forged” at 250 bars of pressure................with a precise alignment of fibers, results in a lighter and stronger component."

Here is what they say about Monocoque
"There are distinctly different benefits resulting from this method.While lugged frames provide an excellent platform for building purely efficient, light, and comfortable racing frames, the monocoque construction can provide certain enhancements to specific elements required in building specific ride definitions. The most obvious difference with monocoque frames is that the tubesets can be formed to more “designed” shapes, providing added benefit such as aerodynamics."

Make your own mind up . LOOK were and still are pioneers in CF technology for bikes . However putting aside the marketing speak, it would appear that there is not a lot of difference . 2 different solutions to getting you to the same point other than you can do more with a monocoque in the way of aero benefits .

Monty Dog

There's decent thread on WW at the moment on the subject of Colango EPS vs CX1 - Pez Tech is a regular poster and in his opinion, lugged frames typically were more subdued in terms of feedback from the road surface in comparison to most moncoques. I can see mfrs not wanting to play up the benefits of monocoques either - they're a lot easier and cheaper to produce. The difficulty is that for many, a high level of feedback and stiffness is seen as being good - fine if you get to ride smooth roads all the time, but not much use if you can't get the power down if your back wheel is hopping all over the place.