C'dale 6-13. Logic behind it?
View Full Version : C'dale 6-13. Logic behind it?
Hello everyone. There are plenty of aluminum frames with carbon forks and / or carbon rear triangle out there. From my understanding that's because carbon absorbs road shock a lot better than the stiffer alum frames.
Now, C'dales 6-13, has exactly the opposite setup: carbon top and down tube, with alum rear triangle.
Can anyone explain the logic behind that?. What purpose does it serve?
thanks
I cannot explain that, nor can I explain why Serotta makes a titanium bike with carbon seat stays, and they also make a titanium bike with carbon top tube and down tube. To me, all carbon makes sense, all titanium makes sense, titanium with carbon seat stays might make sense (but not as much sense as aluminum with carbon seat stays does), but I do not understand the rationale for titanium with carbon top tube and down tube.
Not sure how it works, but my new six13 definately feels like a smoother ride over the miles than my Felt equipped with carbon stays and fork.
Even after the LBS setup the six13 with a more aggressive position/fit than my Felt the ride is a little smoother feeling.
Just had this conversation last week with a buddy of mine who is a regional Cannondale rep. Your main triangle consists of longer/larger tubes than your rear. Thus, the carbon will save more weight as a percentage in the main vs. the rear. Also, one potential knock on carbon rear bikes (and full carbon bikes) is that there is some power loss for some stronger riders.
Just had this conversation last week with a buddy of mine who is a regional Cannondale rep. Your main triangle consists of longer/larger tubes than your rear. Thus, the carbon will save more weight as a percentage in the main vs. the rear. Also, one potential knock on carbon rear bikes (and full carbon bikes) is that there is some power loss for some stronger riders.+1
I did not feel all carbon or rear triangle carbon bikes were responsive for my size. They felt a bit dead. The Six13 was a rocket.. yet it was smooth on bumpier roads. Each rider may feel something different though.
Z
The C'dale marketing booklet I saw a couple of years ago maintained that there was no weight savings or ride advantages to having CF stays vs their all-AL frames. So, guess that building a frame with CF main tubes and AL stays would follow. Of course, the design could be mainly to have something different to sell on the market.
Personal opinion here is that perceived ride qualities are more influenced by the tires, pressures, wheels than of the frame itself. CF stays may provide some dampening of road texture vibration or buzz, but they really don't flex enough to absorb any shocks....you would need a suspension to do that job.
And don't forget the influence of marketing on our perceptions. If a good salesman or ad brochure explains how certain features give a frame a smooth ride, and I'm in a positive mood to buy the bike, I'll likely come back from the test ride and confirm just what he's told me to expect.
Just had this conversation last week with a buddy of mine who is a regional Cannondale rep. Your main triangle consists of longer/larger tubes than your rear. Thus, the carbon will save more weight as a percentage in the main vs. the rear. Also, one potential knock on carbon rear bikes (and full carbon bikes) is that there is some power loss for some stronger riders.
Yeah, the rear triangle is what flexes under power so using stiffer aluminum will prevent the power losses due carbon frame flexing. Also, the most common failure for carbon bikes is the chainstays, some of which are chainstrike abraisions cutting fibers, so making the vulnerable part from something that is stronger and not abraision vulnerable makes a more robust bike. Even in the event of failure, making the more vulnerable portions out of something easily and less expensively replacable should make repairs more practical.
I owned a Trek 2100 in '95, and that was their reasoning as well. They wanted the rear triangle (constructed of aluminum) to not flex under power. The main triangle tubes were OCLV. It was a smooth ride, and it was nice when climbing hills, but it did have a "dead" feeling to it when jumping on the pedals for a sprint or powering up a hill.
Can anyone explain the logic behind that?. What purpose does it serve?
It serves the purposes of Cannondale's marketing department. Aluminum frames can be made dirt cheap in Taiwan, so it is hard to differentiate the company from the host of small companies that are buying generic Al frames, slapping on their own graphics, and pretending to be bike manufacturers.
The carbon serves no purpose other than to make something different than other companies and to give the marketing dept. an opportunity to spin a lot of B.S. about the supposed benefits.
True, loads of marketing BS goes on in cycling. Having ridden AL bikes most of the time I am still waiting for the dreaded "harsh ride of aluminum" to show up.
True, loads of marketing BS goes on in cycling. Having ridden AL bikes most of the time I am still waiting for the dreaded "harsh ride of aluminum" to show up.
I agree. It's marketing. Aluminium frames can be made so very lightweight now.
Softer rear end? Go for a flexier wheelset and keep the tyre pressure under 100PSI. Cannondales shaped seatstays provide damping too.
I agree. It's marketing. Aluminium frames can be made so very lightweight now.
Softer rear end? Go for a flexier wheelset and keep the tyre pressure under 100PSI. Cannondales shaped seatstays provide damping too.
Yup, their CAAD8 frame gives a very nice ride.
It serves the purposes of Cannondale's marketing department. Aluminum frames can be made dirt cheap in Taiwan, so it is hard to differentiate the company from the host of small companies that are buying generic Al frames, slapping on their own graphics, and pretending to be bike manufacturers.
The carbon serves no purpose other than to make something different than other companies and to give the marketing dept. an opportunity to spin a lot of B.S. about the supposed benefits.
Exactly. It's pure marketing hooey. 700c X 32c tires will make for a lot more comfortable ride than a plastic rear triangle and plastic fork. Although most modern road racing bikes (most of which are not used for racing) will only take 25c or 27c tires max.
You can't just say that carbon is BS itself. Done right carbon does give a lot of difference in the feel of the bike. No it doesn't make it more comfortable, but can you imagine how hard it would be to market a "different feel"?
I like the feel that my carbon fork makes in my bike. Takes out road buzz out. Also have rear carbon stays on my bike. They also take some buzz out. But they do make the bike feel a bit dead. So it really depends on what you want. Many things to try out there.
No one knows. A bike could be a load of bs, but just because some variables were tweaked in a certain way, it could be your favorite bike.
But BS, yes, mucho bs out there.
Aluminum actually rides nice!
whats the point of the 6-13? it looks cooler!
No weight saving, probably less stiff aswell.
Cunego and others rode the caad8 even though the 6-13 was the team bike. The riders in the team who are a bit less fussy with there bikes rode the 6-13 coz they were paid to.
Definitely a poseur bike.
Definitely a poseur bike.
Mind you, I was not trying to bash C'dale or those who ride them at all (I myself have owned a beautiful F500 MTB for the last 8 years), after all, what you do with your hard-earned cash is your business only, but just wondering what's the logic behind the "unorthodox" 6-13 frame.
My summary:
- 15% is weight gain on (large) top and bottom tubes
- 15% is increased stiffness from the AL rear triangle
- 70% is marketing
I recently purchased the six13 because I wanted a backup bike and it turns out that the C-dale is now my primary bike and my Felt has become my backup bike.
I don't consider the six13 to have any special "magical powers" nor would I consider it a poser bike as someone suggested anymore than many of the Trek Madones or Litespeeds that I see in the group rides.
However, it does fit me well and since I have very similar setups (same wheelset, tires, stem, etc.) on both the Felt and C-dale I can say the six13 has a better overall feel and is my personal preference when I go ride or train.
It comes down to personal preference and I am very pleased with six13.
Give me a Litespeed, Moser or Colagno and I am sure I would be pleased as well. :)
How about the "compact" road frames? Personally I see those as more gimmicky than carbon tubes. Though I think there are some merits to having a more compact frame on a road bike.
For some people,like me, compact frames make a lot of sense. I have a long torso and short legs. With a standard geometry, if I had the largest frame I could stand over without hurting myself, I had to have a very long stem to accommodate my reach. With a compact frame, I can use a normal length stem, which makes the bike respond much better.
For people with long legs and a short torso, compact frames probably do not make any sense.
Thanks Rick for that explanation. That does make sense. Not one bike shop person told me that! I always got the "its lighter because less material", "more manueverable", "stiffer because the triangle is smaller", which have all been disproved by excellent traditional frame manufacturers.
Automatic Translations (Powered by
):
vBulletin, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by
vBSEO 3.3.0
