Enigma Echo versus Excel Review
abominable
Posts: 2
Echo vs Excel Review
I have had been lucky enough to have been riding an Enigma Echo for the past season and have just upgraded to the new 6/4 Ti Enigma Excel. I've ridden and competed on bikes for over a decade and have chiseled out a niche in hill climbing with a love of the high passes of the Alps, Pyrenees and our own UK hill challenges. I thought a few people on this forum would be interested in my findings.
The Echo has proven to be an excellent road frame, both comfortable and very responsive. Indeed, it is a frame-for-life that stands aside from the rush to lightweight (and always a little fragile feeling) carbon. However, despite my love of the Echo, I learned that Enigma had found a way to make a frame from the fabled 6/4 titanium tubeset without seam welding. When most titanium frame builders soley use 3/2.5 tubesets, who wouldn't be interested?
The geometries between the Echo and Excel frames are identical (no bad thing), and somewhat surprisingly, the frame weights are nearly identical (the Excel being only 60g lighter than the Echo) so one might argue, why bother upgrading? 6/4 titanium (grade 5) is a stiffer material than 3/2.5 (grade 9), due largely to the extra aluminium in the mix, but the drawback is that it is far harder to form into tubesets, and thus has seldom been seen in bicycle framesets as the cost and technology to form them has been prohibitive. Hats off to Enigma then, for pushing the boundaries of technology and producing a 6/4 frame. But how does it perform?
The Excel frame, despite having identical geometries to the Echo, is constructed quite differently to the Echo. The rear triangle is the most apparent difference. They stays are straight and more traditionally designed than the Echo’s curved stays, and in addition the stays in side profile are pencil thin (think Cervelo R3SL), but in vertical profile are formed out and look quite thick. This should, in theory, increase the rear triangle stiffness and translate into improved acceleration. Another key difference is the down tube, which in the Echo has been formed to splay out at the bottom bracket (to enhance frame stiffness presumably) and splayed vertically at the head tube. On the Excel the downtube is non-formed and is a constant diameter along its entire length. This would infer that the Echo might have a stiffer feel, both in power delivery and in vertical compliance, strange given the Excel is a top end frame.
These differences, however, are minor, and with any frame the proof is in the riding.
So how does the Excel ride?
The results are surprising. On the basis of the frame tube designs you would expect that the Excel would be a harsher bike to ride (given it’s rear stay design and by virtue of the stiffer 6/4 tube set), but also that it’s horizontal stiffness would be only marginally greater than the Echo (given the stiffer 6/4 tubes versus it’s non-formed down tube). However, it takes no time in the saddle to find out that the Excel is quite a different beast than the Echo.
I took all components from my Echo and put them on the new Excel (easy to do as the frame tube diameters and geometries are identical). The set-up tested is a full 2009 Dura-Ace groupset, with PRO PLT finishing kit and an IRD rim / Dura-ace hand-built wheelset. The complete weight – 16lb 7oz.
The ride:
The first thing I noticed was how much more comfortable the Excel was when riding on through town on Georgian Pave cobbles towards my favourite hilly 40 mile circuit. The Echo was always a comfortable bike, but the Excel takes this to a new, and completely unexpected, level. It just seems to float over even the worst road surfaces. It is supremely comfortable.
In the handling department it is exactly the same as the Echo, in otherwords, very composed and extremely ‘chuckable’. There is nothing to separate these two frames in this respect. They are both astonishingly competent to descend on.
But here is the big thing. Is the Excel more responsive, is it, as a top level race frame, going to give you the edge? Does it sparkle more vividly than the Echo? Can it justify its lofty price tag up there in the stratospheric price level of Cervelo R3’s and Trek Madones?
In truth, I am probably not the person to judge. Being a 64kg hill climbing whippet I will happily grind away at the Col Du Glandon for over an hour and in those circumstances ultimate stiffness is not so important, and harder to gauge, than it would be to a power-driven time trialist or sprinter. For a climber like me, frame weight is the issue first and foremost whilst stiffness fades to secondary concern. It was a surprise then that I noticed a considerable degree of extra ‘kick down’ and acceleration in the Excel frame over the Echo. Coming out of the saddle on a climb there is a perceptible extra response from the frame, a considerable degree less sap of energy, and that beautiful feeling of acceleration that Saab drivers have secretly enjoyed from their turbos for years. I can only imagine that a bigger, more powerful rider will be blown away by this.
So, do I think the Excel trounces to Echo. Yes and no. If you’re a lighter rider who plays out their game in the mountains, there is an improvement for sure. Enough to justify the extra price? I’m not so sure. However, if you are a stronger more powerful rouleur, your search is over. The Excel is the one for you.
I have had been lucky enough to have been riding an Enigma Echo for the past season and have just upgraded to the new 6/4 Ti Enigma Excel. I've ridden and competed on bikes for over a decade and have chiseled out a niche in hill climbing with a love of the high passes of the Alps, Pyrenees and our own UK hill challenges. I thought a few people on this forum would be interested in my findings.
The Echo has proven to be an excellent road frame, both comfortable and very responsive. Indeed, it is a frame-for-life that stands aside from the rush to lightweight (and always a little fragile feeling) carbon. However, despite my love of the Echo, I learned that Enigma had found a way to make a frame from the fabled 6/4 titanium tubeset without seam welding. When most titanium frame builders soley use 3/2.5 tubesets, who wouldn't be interested?
The geometries between the Echo and Excel frames are identical (no bad thing), and somewhat surprisingly, the frame weights are nearly identical (the Excel being only 60g lighter than the Echo) so one might argue, why bother upgrading? 6/4 titanium (grade 5) is a stiffer material than 3/2.5 (grade 9), due largely to the extra aluminium in the mix, but the drawback is that it is far harder to form into tubesets, and thus has seldom been seen in bicycle framesets as the cost and technology to form them has been prohibitive. Hats off to Enigma then, for pushing the boundaries of technology and producing a 6/4 frame. But how does it perform?
The Excel frame, despite having identical geometries to the Echo, is constructed quite differently to the Echo. The rear triangle is the most apparent difference. They stays are straight and more traditionally designed than the Echo’s curved stays, and in addition the stays in side profile are pencil thin (think Cervelo R3SL), but in vertical profile are formed out and look quite thick. This should, in theory, increase the rear triangle stiffness and translate into improved acceleration. Another key difference is the down tube, which in the Echo has been formed to splay out at the bottom bracket (to enhance frame stiffness presumably) and splayed vertically at the head tube. On the Excel the downtube is non-formed and is a constant diameter along its entire length. This would infer that the Echo might have a stiffer feel, both in power delivery and in vertical compliance, strange given the Excel is a top end frame.
These differences, however, are minor, and with any frame the proof is in the riding.
So how does the Excel ride?
The results are surprising. On the basis of the frame tube designs you would expect that the Excel would be a harsher bike to ride (given it’s rear stay design and by virtue of the stiffer 6/4 tube set), but also that it’s horizontal stiffness would be only marginally greater than the Echo (given the stiffer 6/4 tubes versus it’s non-formed down tube). However, it takes no time in the saddle to find out that the Excel is quite a different beast than the Echo.
I took all components from my Echo and put them on the new Excel (easy to do as the frame tube diameters and geometries are identical). The set-up tested is a full 2009 Dura-Ace groupset, with PRO PLT finishing kit and an IRD rim / Dura-ace hand-built wheelset. The complete weight – 16lb 7oz.
The ride:
The first thing I noticed was how much more comfortable the Excel was when riding on through town on Georgian Pave cobbles towards my favourite hilly 40 mile circuit. The Echo was always a comfortable bike, but the Excel takes this to a new, and completely unexpected, level. It just seems to float over even the worst road surfaces. It is supremely comfortable.
In the handling department it is exactly the same as the Echo, in otherwords, very composed and extremely ‘chuckable’. There is nothing to separate these two frames in this respect. They are both astonishingly competent to descend on.
But here is the big thing. Is the Excel more responsive, is it, as a top level race frame, going to give you the edge? Does it sparkle more vividly than the Echo? Can it justify its lofty price tag up there in the stratospheric price level of Cervelo R3’s and Trek Madones?
In truth, I am probably not the person to judge. Being a 64kg hill climbing whippet I will happily grind away at the Col Du Glandon for over an hour and in those circumstances ultimate stiffness is not so important, and harder to gauge, than it would be to a power-driven time trialist or sprinter. For a climber like me, frame weight is the issue first and foremost whilst stiffness fades to secondary concern. It was a surprise then that I noticed a considerable degree of extra ‘kick down’ and acceleration in the Excel frame over the Echo. Coming out of the saddle on a climb there is a perceptible extra response from the frame, a considerable degree less sap of energy, and that beautiful feeling of acceleration that Saab drivers have secretly enjoyed from their turbos for years. I can only imagine that a bigger, more powerful rider will be blown away by this.
So, do I think the Excel trounces to Echo. Yes and no. If you’re a lighter rider who plays out their game in the mountains, there is an improvement for sure. Enough to justify the extra price? I’m not so sure. However, if you are a stronger more powerful rouleur, your search is over. The Excel is the one for you.
0
Comments
-
Great review.
I've been thinking of getting myself a custom build Enigma for a while now (just saving the pennies) ad am erring towards the Excel after your glowing review. There's only one thing (other than the cost) that puts me off getting one is the integrated headset. I'd have to specify a 'normal' head tube.let all your saddles be comfy and all your rides less bumpy....0 -
Great review.
Would love an Enigma. Way out of my league though.0 -
Would like to see some pics.....0
