Which frame
Comments
-
I was going to suggest a himod supersix evo as the obvious choice, however, going left field:
http://www.craddockcycles.co.uk/
They look hideous!
MattScott Foil Di2 viewtopic.php?f=40044&t=13020685&p=19496365#p19496365
Genesis Volare 853 viewtopic.php?f=40044&t=13020702&p=19589281#p195892810 -
What about Sram Etap wireless?0
-
You can't buy it yet. When you can, I expect I will. It was originally the plan for the R5Ca, which has no internal cable routing. I am somewhat tempted to wait for v1.1, though, as many things tested by the pro peloton come unstuck out in the real world. You might also be surprised to know that (on published numbers anyway) the weight saving over Di2 isn't all that. 686g for shifters, RD & FD (with batteries) for eTap; 697g for the same components in Di2 including 43g for the loom and 50g for the battery. The reviews indicate that shifting on eTap is slower than Di2, and AIUI the nature of the controls means that you can't simultaneously upshift the rear and downshift the front as you can with Di2.What about Sram Etap wireless?
Much more importantly, when my clubmates get it, it will mean the end of unplugging their RD at the lights. I expect it'll not be so easy to half-inch the battery...0 -
I'm following this thread with interest as I'm in a similar position, - keep us up to date with whatever you get up to 964Cup.
I'm probably going to dive in for the frame and parts in January when a few sales are going on. I was thinking along the lines of an R5, but am now tending to move towards an R3, and use the money saved for better/lighter components. But I'm still in the headscratching phase.
£3-4k for the frameset is (#firstworldproblem) the worst place to be, because you can buy almost anything and all of it is top end. S-Works, AXL, Lightweight, Cervelo, Trek P1 and on and on and on. The number of framesets above that price point is tiny, so weirdly if you can/want to spend 5k+ your choices are quite restricted. Down at £2k-ish, I think there are a few bits of stand-out value amongst quite a lot of also-rans, so in a sense it's easier to choose. I have to say - if I could find anyone who sold it - it would be really hard to argue against the Fuji SL 1.1 frameset at that price (US SRP is - don't laugh - $1900, for a sub 700g frame with fantastic reviews), however much my loyalty says R3.0 -
Maybe. Will look into this a bit more.
I'm sure they make the wyndymilla frame and also fondriest frame i think
Hersh frames are also made by Sarto. They will be cheaper than the above too.0 -
dare i say an F8; i think BSA bracket outweighs even dentist perception ^ ^0
-
trek emonda SLR frameset for 2016 is only a shade over £2k0
-
I am sensing you really are looking for something not only a little bit special but also exclusive, with this in mind what about a DeAnima:
http://deanima.it/eng/index.php
Three frame builders one of them being Gianni Pegoretti who worked with his brother Dario admittedly on metallic frames.0 -
Apparently with the DeAnima:
A DeAnima Unblended frameset, including a 3T fork, is priced at £2,250. A custom geometry is available at an added cost of €1000. This includes being measured for your frame and requires a visit to the manufacturing facilities in Italy. The price includes all transfers, a night’s hotel accommodation, a guided tour of the manufacturing facility, and a 3-4 hour ride in the mountains around the area. The turnaround time on a custom frame is six weeks.
0 -
The thing about custom carbon is that you give up all the sophistication of the manufacturing. The big carbon specialists each do something special in their layup, moulding or compaction that sets their frames apart - either in lightness, or in response. All the custom geo small players use one or other tube to tube technique, which is basically one step up from the Alan Carbonio. DeAnima - pretty though the frames are, and appealing though Italian craftsmanship is - even start their "Tecnica" section with a video of a ready-made tube being mitred; to me, treating carbon like metal tubing totally misses the point of the material. If the frame, or at least the two triangles, isn't moulded as a monocoque you might as well use Ti or steel. Also, none of the custom builders will get anywhere close to the weight, or the tuned response, of any of the big name frames people have suggested in this thread.
If I want a custom frame - and doubtless I do - I'll get it in steel, where it is, as it always has been, about tube selection and artisanal skill. Even there, things have moved on. I talked to Condor about getting a Super Acciaio built in stainless. They could match the geometry, but not the tube shapes (which are quite unusual for steel) - but it's the tube shapes that define that bike and its carbon-like responsiveness. So an artisanal steel frame would be for the aesthetic and the springy comfort, not as a main race bike.0 -
Where? It's £3k at Sigma; and only in powder blue, not the vapour deposition black of the full-fat SLR 10 (actually, I suppose it's the 100% fat-free SLR 10). What's interesting is that according to their own figures, the SLR frame is only 20g lighter than the Supersix. The SLR also uses direct-mount brakes, which rather limits brake choice at the moment. I'd like some Carbones or ee Cycleworks at some point...trek emonda SLR frameset for 2016 is only a shade over £2k
So much of these (of course meaningless) weight savings are in the fork, though. The R5Ca actually uses a THM fork, as does the Vial Evo D. These are sub 280g uncut. The Supersix, SLR etc all have fork weights in the 300s (as does the junior Vial Evo, since it uses a 3T item). The Fuji has a 280g fork, interestingly.
I'm still tending towards the AX Lightness, but am still actively investigating the Fuji SL and the Supersix Black Inc.0 -
If you got the Fuji you could spend the money you save on a nice custom steel frame...English Cycles V3 | Cervelo P5 | Cervelo T4 | Trek Domane Koppenberg0
-
This guy is a legend (ignore the name, it's Slovenian): http://www.berk-composites.com/shop/index.php
More info: http://weightweenies.starbike.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=806840 -
Second berk composites. Those are beautiful.
EUR3800 for a frameset0 -
It is a tough call at that price range. First world and all.
Without getting too alliterative, we're looking at frames that are exotic, exclusive, expensive and effective. Personally, I'd prefer something at least a little exclusive, which generally means a small manufacturer, and that's the bit that leaves a bit of doubt in my mind.
Can a small outfit working with a fairly limited turnover on a high tech process like carbon frame manufacturing, produce the same quality as one of the big corporations, with all their R&D and testing facilities? I'm not so sure, - their history and expertise is more likely to be based around traditional methods and materials. So I'm not confident that a frame can be exclusive and effective. Exclusivity on a frame build with a big outfit is definitely going to expensive, eg the R5Ca. Obviously the model is exclusive, but not so much the make.
People like Enigma, Legend etc fit the bill with ti frames, but I think it's a different set of demands when it comes to carbon.
Hmmm, bo11ocks, I think I'm going backwards, not forwards...0 -
Have a good read of the weight weenies thread on Berk if you need convincing. He is a talented guy who has made stuff for team sky and Olympic teams.0
-
http://www.craddockcycles.co.uk also look pretty nice.0
-
The thing about custom carbon is that you give up all the sophistication of the manufacturing. The big carbon specialists each do something special in their layup, moulding or compaction that sets their frames apart - either in lightness, or in response. All the custom geo small players use one or other tube to tube technique, which is basically one step up from the Alan Carbonio. DeAnima - pretty though the frames are, and appealing though Italian craftsmanship is - even start their "Tecnica" section with a video of a ready-made tube being mitred; to me, treating carbon like metal tubing totally misses the point of the material. If the frame, or at least the two triangles, isn't moulded as a monocoque you might as well use Ti or steel. Also, none of the custom builders will get anywhere close to the weight, or the tuned response, of any of the big name frames people have suggested in this thread.
If I want a custom frame - and doubtless I do - I'll get it in steel, where it is, as it always has been, about tube selection and artisanal skill. Even there, things have moved on. I talked to Condor about getting a Super Acciaio built in stainless. They could match the geometry, but not the tube shapes (which are quite unusual for steel) - but it's the tube shapes that define that bike and its carbon-like responsiveness. So an artisanal steel frame would be for the aesthetic and the springy comfort, not as a main race bike.
This sums up my thinking too.
It seems one of your main objectives is to build a lighter set up than your current cervelo but I think the lighter frames become the more you have to accept the compromise between weight and durability. I've opted for an s works Tarmac because I'm 6'3 and I've compromised a little on build weight vs stiffness and my preferred geometry. In your case the cervelo seems very close to your ideal and made you happy. I'd be very tempted to replace like for like or close to it.Cannondale caad7 ultegra
S-works Tarmac sl5 etap
Colnago c64 etap wifli
Brother Swift0 -
Haven't seen Storck mentioned, so, I thought I would.
0 -
It's just the £6.5k bill for the RCa that puts me off; together with the knowledge that the mishap that broke the top tube of the R5Ca would have been shrugged off by any of my other bikes - as you rightly point out.I'd be very tempted to replace like for like or close to it.
I think I'm going for the AX Lightness. The range of possibilities expanded to encompass the Lightweight Urgestalt (but I'm not a big Lightweight fan) and the Ridley Helium SL (because I like the Lotto Soudal colourscheme). I don't think the Lightweight is light enough to justify the price, and I don't think the Ridley is light enough full stop (actual frame weights seem to be around 785g+). I probably ought to buy the Fuji - it's light, they're a huge and well-funded company with proper research and it's comically cheap compared to the other choices, but there's just something that tickles my fancy about the Vial. Wish I could justify the Vial Ultra, but even I baulk at 2k euros for a 50g saving. Re-reading that last sentence, it makes no sense. That's roughly the premium for the AX over the Fuji. Bah. Logic? Bollocks.0 -
The thing about custom carbon is that you give up all the sophistication of the manufacturing. The big carbon specialists each do something special in their layup, moulding or compaction that sets their frames apart - either in lightness, or in response. All the custom geo small players use one or other tube to tube technique, which is basically one step up from the Alan Carbonio. DeAnima - pretty though the frames are, and appealing though Italian craftsmanship is - even start their "Tecnica" section with a video of a ready-made tube being mitred; to me, treating carbon like metal tubing totally misses the point of the material. If the frame, or at least the two triangles, isn't moulded as a monocoque you might as well use Ti or steel. Also, none of the custom builders will get anywhere close to the weight, or the tuned response, of any of the big name frames people have suggested in this thread.
If I want a custom frame - and doubtless I do - I'll get it in steel, where it is, as it always has been, about tube selection and artisanal skill. Even there, things have moved on. I talked to Condor about getting a Super Acciaio built in stainless. They could match the geometry, but not the tube shapes (which are quite unusual for steel) - but it's the tube shapes that define that bike and its carbon-like responsiveness. So an artisanal steel frame would be for the aesthetic and the springy comfort, not as a main race bike.
what a custom carbon manufacturer can do which the mass producers can't is tune your frame to ride how you want. The mass producers is one 'style fits all'.
They can customise each tubes layup, and when joining tube to tube, can customise the wrap at the joints, to end up with a stiffer or more compliant frame. I grant you they can't produce frames as light as the mass producers, but theirs will ride better and be more durable, because they will have been built to your weight and
riding style.
Why not test ride a custom tube to tube frame – see for yourself?0 -
The thing about custom carbon is that you give up all the sophistication of the manufacturing. The big carbon specialists each do something special in their layup, moulding or compaction that sets their frames apart - either in lightness, or in response. All the custom geo small players use one or other tube to tube technique, which is basically one step up from the Alan Carbonio. DeAnima - pretty though the frames are, and appealing though Italian craftsmanship is - even start their "Tecnica" section with a video of a ready-made tube being mitred; to me, treating carbon like metal tubing totally misses the point of the material. If the frame, or at least the two triangles, isn't moulded as a monocoque you might as well use Ti or steel. Also, none of the custom builders will get anywhere close to the weight, or the tuned response, of any of the big name frames people have suggested in this thread.
If I want a custom frame - and doubtless I do - I'll get it in steel, where it is, as it always has been, about tube selection and artisanal skill. Even there, things have moved on. I talked to Condor about getting a Super Acciaio built in stainless. They could match the geometry, but not the tube shapes (which are quite unusual for steel) - but it's the tube shapes that define that bike and its carbon-like responsiveness. So an artisanal steel frame would be for the aesthetic and the springy comfort, not as a main race bike.
what a custom carbon manufacturer can do which the mass producers can't is tune your frame to ride how you want. The mass producers is one 'style fits all'.
They can customise each tubes layup, and when joining tube to tube, can customise the wrap at the joints, to end up with a stiffer or more compliant frame. I grant you they can't produce frames as light as the mass producers, but theirs will ride better and be more durable, because they will have been built to your weight and
riding style.
Why not test ride a custom tube to tube frame – see for yourself?
A.K.A marketing B.S0 -
Maybe. But what they can't do - apart from complex lay-up or resin minimisation or compression moulding - is the FEA and countless km of rider testing that mean the frame will work well in a wide variety of situations and cope successfully with rough terrain (pave, or British B-roads) and so on. One reason I'm hesitating over the AX Lightness is that (as far as I know) it's never sat under a pro team rider or completed a Grand Tour. That's the main attraction of the others: the Ridley is a current GT frame (Lott Soudal), the Fuji was in '14 (Netapp) - and obviously the R5Ca was a GT winner ('12 Giro). It's not that I'm in any way in the same league, but if the frame can cope with Paris Roubaix, the TdF and the Giro, it'll cope with anything I can throw at it.what a custom carbon manufacturer can do which the mass producers can't is tune your frame to ride how you want. The mass producers is one 'style fits all'.
They can customise each tubes layup, and when joining tube to tube, can customise the wrap at the joints, to end up with a stiffer or more compliant frame. I grant you they can't produce frames as light as the mass producers, but theirs will ride better and be more durable, because they will have been built to your weight and
riding style.
Why not test ride a custom tube to tube frame – see for yourself?0 -
BH Ultralight Evo?0
-
The thing about custom carbon is that you give up all the sophistication of the manufacturing. The big carbon specialists each do something special in their layup, moulding or compaction that sets their frames apart - either in lightness, or in response. All the custom geo small players use one or other tube to tube technique, which is basically one step up from the Alan Carbonio. DeAnima - pretty though the frames are, and appealing though Italian craftsmanship is - even start their "Tecnica" section with a video of a ready-made tube being mitred; to me, treating carbon like metal tubing totally misses the point of the material. If the frame, or at least the two triangles, isn't moulded as a monocoque you might as well use Ti or steel. Also, none of the custom builders will get anywhere close to the weight, or the tuned response, of any of the big name frames people have suggested in this thread.
If I want a custom frame - and doubtless I do - I'll get it in steel, where it is, as it always has been, about tube selection and artisanal skill. Even there, things have moved on. I talked to Condor about getting a Super Acciaio built in stainless. They could match the geometry, but not the tube shapes (which are quite unusual for steel) - but it's the tube shapes that define that bike and its carbon-like responsiveness. So an artisanal steel frame would be for the aesthetic and the springy comfort, not as a main race bike.
what a custom carbon manufacturer can do which the mass producers can't is tune your frame to ride how you want. The mass producers is one 'style fits all'.
They can customise each tubes layup, and when joining tube to tube, can customise the wrap at the joints, to end up with a stiffer or more compliant frame. I grant you they can't produce frames as light as the mass producers, but theirs will ride better and be more durable, because they will have been built to your weight and
riding style.
Why not test ride a custom tube to tube frame – see for yourself?
A.K.A marketing B.S
I suggest you take a trip to a custom carbon frame shop0 -
Maybe. But what they can't do - apart from complex lay-up or resin minimisation or compression moulding - is the FEA and countless km of rider testing that mean the frame will work well in a wide variety of situations and cope successfully with rough terrain (pave, or British B-roads) and so on. One reason I'm hesitating over the AX Lightness is that (as far as I know) it's never sat under a pro team rider or completed a Grand Tour. That's the main attraction of the others: the Ridley is a current GT frame (Lott Soudal), the Fuji was in '14 (Netapp) - and obviously the R5Ca was a GT winner ('12 Giro). It's not that I'm in any way in the same league, but if the frame can cope with Paris Roubaix, the TdF and the Giro, it'll cope with anything I can throw at it.what a custom carbon manufacturer can do which the mass producers can't is tune your frame to ride how you want. The mass producers is one 'style fits all'.
They can customise each tubes layup, and when joining tube to tube, can customise the wrap at the joints, to end up with a stiffer or more compliant frame. I grant you they can't produce frames as light as the mass producers, but theirs will ride better and be more durable, because they will have been built to your weight and
riding style.
Why not test ride a custom tube to tube frame – see for yourself?
The reason the AX frame hasn;t sat under a pro team rider is that they can't afford to give frames away to pro teams for free. Doesn't make it a bad frame.
And what about a counter argument? Just because these big companies can afford to give frames to pro teams, does it make their frames better? There's been numerous instances of these pro riders frames failing.0 -
Maybe. But what they can't do - apart from complex lay-up or resin minimisation or compression moulding - is the FEA and countless km of rider testing that mean the frame will work well in a wide variety of situations and cope successfully with rough terrain (pave, or British B-roads) and so on. One reason I'm hesitating over the AX Lightness is that (as far as I know) it's never sat under a pro team rider or completed a Grand Tour. That's the main attraction of the others: the Ridley is a current GT frame (Lott Soudal), the Fuji was in '14 (Netapp) - and obviously the R5Ca was a GT winner ('12 Giro). It's not that I'm in any way in the same league, but if the frame can cope with Paris Roubaix, the TdF and the Giro, it'll cope with anything I can throw at it.what a custom carbon manufacturer can do which the mass producers can't is tune your frame to ride how you want. The mass producers is one 'style fits all'.
They can customise each tubes layup, and when joining tube to tube, can customise the wrap at the joints, to end up with a stiffer or more compliant frame. I grant you they can't produce frames as light as the mass producers, but theirs will ride better and be more durable, because they will have been built to your weight and
riding style.
Why not test ride a custom tube to tube frame – see for yourself?
The reason the AX frame hasn;t sat under a pro team rider is that they can't afford to give frames away to pro teams for free. Doesn't make it a bad frame.
And what about a counter argument? Just because these big companies can afford to give frames to pro teams, does it make their frames better? There's been numerous instances of these pro riders frames failing.
Do you think these pro's get off their bikes at the end of a hard stage, straighten their backs, and say 'ooh i wish i had a custom made carbon frame with a lay-up that suits these roads'
0 -
Maybe. But what they can't do - apart from complex lay-up or resin minimisation or compression moulding - is the FEA and countless km of rider testing that mean the frame will work well in a wide variety of situations and cope successfully with rough terrain (pave, or British B-roads) and so on. One reason I'm hesitating over the AX Lightness is that (as far as I know) it's never sat under a pro team rider or completed a Grand Tour. That's the main attraction of the others: the Ridley is a current GT frame (Lott Soudal), the Fuji was in '14 (Netapp) - and obviously the R5Ca was a GT winner ('12 Giro). It's not that I'm in any way in the same league, but if the frame can cope with Paris Roubaix, the TdF and the Giro, it'll cope with anything I can throw at it.what a custom carbon manufacturer can do which the mass producers can't is tune your frame to ride how you want. The mass producers is one 'style fits all'.
They can customise each tubes layup, and when joining tube to tube, can customise the wrap at the joints, to end up with a stiffer or more compliant frame. I grant you they can't produce frames as light as the mass producers, but theirs will ride better and be more durable, because they will have been built to your weight and
riding style.
Why not test ride a custom tube to tube frame – see for yourself?
The reason the AX frame hasn;t sat under a pro team rider is that they can't afford to give frames away to pro teams for free. Doesn't make it a bad frame.
And what about a counter argument? Just because these big companies can afford to give frames to pro teams, does it make their frames better? There's been numerous instances of these pro riders frames failing.
I think Cup means that the big maker bikes are extensively tested by their test teams and Pros and we KNOW that for sure. Custom bike from small shop could be much better, but you have to rely on much smaller experience/test report pool.0 -
Maybe. But what they can't do - apart from complex lay-up or resin minimisation or compression moulding - is the FEA and countless km of rider testing that mean the frame will work well in a wide variety of situations and cope successfully with rough terrain (pave, or British B-roads) and so on. One reason I'm hesitating over the AX Lightness is that (as far as I know) it's never sat under a pro team rider or completed a Grand Tour. That's the main attraction of the others: the Ridley is a current GT frame (Lott Soudal), the Fuji was in '14 (Netapp) - and obviously the R5Ca was a GT winner ('12 Giro). It's not that I'm in any way in the same league, but if the frame can cope with Paris Roubaix, the TdF and the Giro, it'll cope with anything I can throw at it.what a custom carbon manufacturer can do which the mass producers can't is tune your frame to ride how you want. The mass producers is one 'style fits all'.
They can customise each tubes layup, and when joining tube to tube, can customise the wrap at the joints, to end up with a stiffer or more compliant frame. I grant you they can't produce frames as light as the mass producers, but theirs will ride better and be more durable, because they will have been built to your weight and
riding style.
Why not test ride a custom tube to tube frame – see for yourself?
The reason the AX frame hasn;t sat under a pro team rider is that they can't afford to give frames away to pro teams for free. Doesn't make it a bad frame.
And what about a counter argument? Just because these big companies can afford to give frames to pro teams, does it make their frames better? There's been numerous instances of these pro riders frames failing.
Do you think these pro's get off their bikes at the end of a hard stage, straighten their backs, and say 'ooh i wish i had a custom made carbon frame with a lay-up that suits these roads' They certainly do after Roubaix!
Thing is with some of the extreme set ups some of the pro's have, I'm sure some of them would at least love to have a made to measure frame! Just look at the way Adam Hansen has to set his stock frame up :shock:0 -
Maybe. But what they can't do - apart from complex lay-up or resin minimisation or compression moulding - is the FEA and countless km of rider testing that mean the frame will work well in a wide variety of situations and cope successfully with rough terrain (pave, or British B-roads) and so on. One reason I'm hesitating over the AX Lightness is that (as far as I know) it's never sat under a pro team rider or completed a Grand Tour. That's the main attraction of the others: the Ridley is a current GT frame (Lott Soudal), the Fuji was in '14 (Netapp) - and obviously the R5Ca was a GT winner ('12 Giro). It's not that I'm in any way in the same league, but if the frame can cope with Paris Roubaix, the TdF and the Giro, it'll cope with anything I can throw at it.what a custom carbon manufacturer can do which the mass producers can't is tune your frame to ride how you want. The mass producers is one 'style fits all'.
They can customise each tubes layup, and when joining tube to tube, can customise the wrap at the joints, to end up with a stiffer or more compliant frame. I grant you they can't produce frames as light as the mass producers, but theirs will ride better and be more durable, because they will have been built to your weight and
riding style.
Why not test ride a custom tube to tube frame – see for yourself?
The reason the AX frame hasn;t sat under a pro team rider is that they can't afford to give frames away to pro teams for free. Doesn't make it a bad frame.
And what about a counter argument? Just because these big companies can afford to give frames to pro teams, does it make their frames better? There's been numerous instances of these pro riders frames failing.
I think Cup means that the big maker bikes are extensively tested by their test teams and Pros and we KNOW that for sure. Custom bike from small shop could be much better, but you have to rely on much smaller experience/test report pool.
true0
