2004 v. 1998 Litespeed Ultimate frame

[Matt O'Toole]

On Wed, 2005-10-19 at 20:48 -0700, TaxesStink wrote:

> I have spent a little time passively looking for a Ti frame. I have
> come across a 1998 Litespeed Ultimate frame that is in excellent
> condition for a reasonable price with fairly low miles. Assuming there
> is nothing wrong w/ the 1998 model, how much better is the 2004/2005
> model?
>
> The newer models have several advantages:
> 1 - carbon stays
> 2 - improved aerodynamics
> 3 - improved Ti mfg. technology (??)
>
> Any insight would be greatly appreciated...
>
> Also, is there any scenario where one of you might consider a 1998
> model over a new one?

The differences in frame material and shape are mostly about cosmetics
and style. The newer model may be a smidgeon lighter or stiffer, but
for all practical purposes, performance will be identical.

I would prefer an all-Ti bike for its indestructible finish. Ti frames
can dent or break like anything else, but there's no paint to be
scratched. If you do get a scratch, it can usually be buffed out with
Scotch-Brite, etc. To me, this paintless finish is the main advantage
of a Ti frame, and it's no small one if you plan to keep your bike for
many years.

An average Ti frame may be more dent resistant than an Al or steel one
of the same weight, but a superlight Ti frame is probably just as
fragile. Since these high-end frames tend to get lighter every year,
with thinner-walled tubes, the older model may be more stout.

Matt O.

 

[Alex Rodriguez]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...

>I have spent a little time passively looking for a Ti frame. I have
>come across a 1998 Litespeed Ultimate frame that is in excellent
>condition for a reasonable price with fairly low miles. Assuming there
>is nothing wrong w/ the 1998 model, how much better is the 2004/2005
>model?
>
>The newer models have several advantages:
>1 - carbon stays

Maybe a little lighter.

>2 - improved aerodynamics

Minimal at best.

>3 - improved Ti mfg. technology (??)

Later Ultimates have 6/4 downtubes where older ultimates have 3/2.5 downtubes.

>Any insight would be greatly appreciated...
>Also, is there any scenario where one of you might consider a 1998
>model over a new one?

Yes, the older ultimates don't use the stupid integrated headsets.
-------------
Alex

 

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

TaxesStink wrote:
> Pete -- thanks for the reply. I ride a 61cm Bianchi Aluminum and this
> is a 61 cm Ultimate. I rode around a parking lot yesterday and needed
> to talk it over w/ my wife. I will ask the owner to let me do a decent
> short ride (5-6 miles on it). Are there any pointers on fit you might
> recommend -- or am I best served to head over to an LBS for further
> assistance?

Tough to accuratly find things like knee bend and KOPS by yourself
after a short ride. What feels ok after 5-6 miles may bite you in 50-60
miles.

If ya fit a 61cm Bianchi, measure the seattube angle and top tube to
see if they are comparable. Bet they are.
>
>
>
> Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
> > TaxesStink wrote:
> > > Thanks again for replying to my comments and questions about the 1998
> > > Litespeed. There is a guy here locally that has a 1998 Litespeed
> > > Ultimate w/ Campy, Dura Ace, and Ultegra/600 components. The bike is
> > > in great shape, as it has not been ridden in 5 years. It was recently
> > > tuned and rides well -- I still need to do a "real" test ride.
> > >
> > > I guess the main goals of my questions were twofold:
> > > 1 - is there really any difference between the 1998 model and the
> > > "modern" models
> > > 2 - is $800-$1000 a decent price to pay for this?
> > >
> > > I have no intention on selling it -- I would be using it.
> >
> > Screamin' good deal. I sold Litespeeds in that era and the Ultimate was
> > a very nice riding frame. $1000 for the frame only isa good price...for
> > the whole bike, really good. BUT make sure it ftts ya.

 

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

Mike Krueger wrote:

>
> A buddy of mine traded in his '98 or '99 Ultimate for a 2004 Ultimate.
> He says the front end is stiffer, since he went from a 1" quill stem to
> the 1-1/8" carbon steerer/threadless stem set-up. As far as the rear
> end is concerned, I would think that any perceived increase in
> stiffness from the carbon stays is probably imagined, since the
> Ultimate has always been designed with short, rigid stays to begin
> with.

Interesting that aluminum makers say the carbon ass-end makes the ride
more complient, the ti makers say it makes it stiffer...what
crappola.......

 

[Jasper Janssen]

On 29 Oct 2005 07:34:24 -0700, "Qui si parla Campagnolo"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Interesting that aluminum makers say the carbon ass-end makes the ride
>more complient, the ti makers say it makes it stiffer...what
>crappola.......

Well, that's possible, if carbon is right in between alu and ti in
stiffness. But more importantly, you can make your carbon just as stiff or
flexy as you want it to be.

Jasper

 

[Mark Hickey]

Jasper Janssen <[email protected]> wrote:

>On 29 Oct 2005 07:34:24 -0700, "Qui si parla Campagnolo"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Interesting that aluminum makers say the carbon ass-end makes the ride
>>more complient, the ti makers say it makes it stiffer...what
>>crappola.......
>
>Well, that's possible, if carbon is right in between alu and ti in
>stiffness. But more importantly, you can make your carbon just as stiff or
>flexy as you want it to be.

You can make it as LATERALLY flexy as you want, granted.

But to assume that those <insert material here> stays are COMPRESSING
enough to make a discernable difference to the bike's ride quality is
buying into the princess and the pea syndrome.

Any stay (chain- or seat-) that can be compressed enough to make any
difference at all (that is, that won't be entirely swamped by the
many-mm compression at low forces that the tire provides) would be FAR
too flexible laterally to ride.

Yes, manufacturers can claim that their proprietary space-age
ubermaterial stays are 50% more compliant than Brand X, and be telling
the truth. What they WON'T do is tell you how much difference that
makes to the "bicycle system" that includes relatively mooshy tires
and saddle. Adding 0.1mm of compliance to a "system" with 20.0mm of
compliance isn't really going to save your butt from rough asphalt.

Of course you can find plenty of anecdotal evidence to the contrary,
but you have to remember that a placebo can be a powerful drug.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

 

[Jasper Janssen]

On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 11:01:19 -0700, Mark Hickey <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Any stay (chain- or seat-) that can be compressed enough to make any
>difference at all (that is, that won't be entirely swamped by the
>many-mm compression at low forces that the tire provides) would be FAR
>too flexible laterally to ride.

Dunno if it's that categorical. Take the edge case: the seatstays are
gone, and the chainstays are made with a horizontal rather than vertical
large dimension -- in other words, they're leaf springs providing
suspension while being extremely stiff laterally. If you want, you can add
back in highly curved seatstays that act as a compressive spring.

I remember seeing a picture of a monocoque bike that had the seat hanging
off a large member connected only to the headtube and providing suspension
that way, so Carbon should be able to be made to handle the loads
involved. Although it might become big and heavy.

Jasper

 

[Ron Ruff]

Jasper Janssen wrote:

> Dunno if it's that categorical. Take the edge case: the seatstays are
> gone, and the chainstays are made with a horizontal rather than vertical
> large dimension -- in other words, they're leaf springs providing
> suspension while being extremely stiff laterally. If you want, you can add
> back in highly curved seatstays that act as a compressive spring.
>

You can have "lateral" stiffness, but your torsional stiffness has
disappeared along with the vertical... so you have a wheel that easily
twists out of plane with the frame. This is the problem with trying to
build compliance into the structure.

> I remember seeing a picture of a monocoque bike that had the seat hanging
> off a large member connected only to the headtube and providing suspension
> that way, so Carbon should be able to be made to handle the loads
> involved. Although it might become big and heavy.

Softride beam? They were a sandwich with an elastomer in the middle...
always thought they were ugly and ill-conceived. Some others had a
pivot near the headtube and were effectively a suspension seatpost.

BTW I have swoopy seatstays on my Airborne, plus they meet the seat
tube several inches below where they should... but there isn't any
vertical flex going on.

Try this... push down on the top tube where it meets the seat tube. Use
all your weight... feel the amount of flex. Then try pressing down on
the seat itself. Now do the same at the brake hoods. If you'd like, you
can pump your tires up as hard as you dare, to make the difference even
more apparent.

It is a proven fact that wearing earplugs makes a bike ride smoother...

 

[Michael Press]

In article <[email protected]>,
Jasper Janssen <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 29 Oct 2005 07:34:24 -0700, "Qui si parla Campagnolo"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Interesting that aluminum makers say the carbon ass-end makes the ride
> >more complient, the ti makers say it makes it stiffer...what
> >crappola.......
>
> Well, that's possible, if carbon is right in between alu and ti in
> stiffness. But more importantly, you can make your carbon just as stiff or
> flexy as you want it to be.

Stiffness is not an intrinsic property. I repeat,
stiffness is not an intrinsic property.

What properties are intrinsic?
Bulk (or elastic) modulus, density, hardness, and yield
strength are intrinsic properties. Note that while
hardness, and yield strength can be changed by alloying
the material, bulk modulus and density remain the same.

Strength of a tube depends on the construction of the
tube. Stiffness, or spring constant as we students of
physics are wont to say, depends on the construction of
member.

Another intrinsic property of materials is how far the
material may be deformed and remain in the linear elastic
regime. When we stress a material, first it responds as a
linear spring, then it responds as a non-linear spring,
then it plastically deforms.

While makers of steel frames have had a century to get it
right, makers of Al, Ti, and carbon fiber frames have been
working hard to design fine frames with these newer
materials.

Other things that makes a frame comfortable is rider
expertise, fit, rider's ability to fit a frame to himself,
and rider's expectations.

<http://www2.sjsu.edu/orgs/asmtms/artcle/articl.htm>

--
Michael Press

 

[Jasper Janssen]

On 29 Oct 2005 14:37:29 -0700, "Ron Ruff" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Jasper Janssen wrote:
>
>> Dunno if it's that categorical. Take the edge case: the seatstays are
>> gone, and the chainstays are made with a horizontal rather than vertical
>> large dimension -- in other words, they're leaf springs providing
>> suspension while being extremely stiff laterally. If you want, you can add
>> back in highly curved seatstays that act as a compressive spring.
>
>You can have "lateral" stiffness, but your torsional stiffness has
>disappeared along with the vertical... so you have a wheel that easily
>twists out of plane with the frame. This is the problem with trying to
>build compliance into the structure.

Unless you use a really large through axle. Maybe. But okay, yeah, you
shot a hole in my cunning plan.

>> I remember seeing a picture of a monocoque bike that had the seat hanging
>> off a large member connected only to the headtube and providing suspension
>> that way, so Carbon should be able to be made to handle the loads
>> involved. Although it might become big and heavy.

>BTW I have swoopy seatstays on my Airborne, plus they meet the seat
>tube several inches below where they should... but there isn't any
>vertical flex going on.

I was talking about carbon stays with the large dimension transverse to
the bike (supremely unaero, come to think of it), and the properties
adjusted to make them effectively leaf springs.

>Try this... push down on the top tube where it meets the seat tube. Use
>all your weight... feel the amount of flex. Then try pressing down on
>the seat itself. Now do the same at the brake hoods. If you'd like, you
>can pump your tires up as hard as you dare, to make the difference even
>more apparent.


Jasper