Advantage of lugged carbon frame

[Artoi]

I note that some carbon frames eg. Bianchi 928 vs 928L, has lugged frame
design as an improvement. Just what is the benefit of lugged while other
companies are going with full monocoque carbon frames. If the monocoques
are even better, then shouldn't the 928 without the L be better?

Anyone know the technicalities here? Thanks.
--

 

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

Artoi wrote:
> I note that some carbon frames eg. Bianchi 928 vs 928L, has lugged frame
> design as an improvement. Just what is the benefit of lugged while other
> companies are going with full monocoque carbon frames. If the monocoques
> are even better, then shouldn't the 928 without the L be better?
>
> Anyone know the technicalities here? Thanks.
> --

Neither is better or worse than the other. Different ways of making
them and with so many variables with amount of glue and carbon weave
used, hard to have any generalities about carpetfiber.
Much harder to change design with monocoque..since ya gotta make a new
mold. Put 3 people in a room with carbon fiber frames, get 4 opinions.
Fit and reliability are the questions to be answered, all else is minor
in comparison.

 

[dabac]

I note that some carbon frames ..has lugged frame
design as an improvement. Just what is the benefit ..

I can't see any immediate rider advantages of lugged design, but I can see HUGE manufacturing advantages. With lugged you can use round stock and (more or less) slip the pieces together, while monocoques require more work. If done correctly both will work and be of far less importance to performance than bike fit and rider ability.

 

[[email protected]]

dabac wrote:
> Artoi Wrote:
> > I note that some carbon frames ..has lugged frame
> > design as an improvement. Just what is the benefit ..
>
> I can't see any immediate rider advantages of lugged design, but I can
> see HUGE manufacturing advantages. With lugged you can use round stock
> and (more or less) slip the pieces together, while monocoques require
> more work. If done correctly both will work and be of far less
> importance to performance than bike fit and rider ability.
>
>
> --
> dabac

No advantage to the owner rider UNLESS it also allows custom sizing. It
is much cheaper and easier to build. The most significant DIS_advantage
it the addition of a new potential failure mode. (inter-laminate sheer
where the lug and tube separate)

 

[Larry]

With all structural and ride characteristics being equal the monocoques look
much better becauses of the shaped tubes and not the traditional round ones.
I ride a Look KG386i and love it. I get so many compliments on the unique
look.

 

[[email protected]]

Larry wrote:
> With all structural and ride characteristics being equal the monocoques look
> much better becauses of the shaped tubes and not the traditional round ones.
> I ride a Look KG386i and love it. I get so many compliments on the unique
> look.

look at the recall history with lugged frames compared to monocoque; I
consider a lugged cf frame as a disposable bike

 

[Jay S. Hill]

[email protected] wrote:

> look at the recall history with lugged frames compared to monocoque; I
> consider a lugged cf frame as a disposable bike

So you believe lugged carbon frames are inherently more prone to
breakage than monocoque carbon frames?

 

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

>> With all structural and ride characteristics being equal the monocoques
>> look
>> much better becauses of the shaped tubes and not the traditional round
>> ones.
>> I ride a Look KG386i and love it. I get so many compliments on the unique
>> look.
>
> look at the recall history with lugged frames compared to monocoque; I
> consider a lugged cf frame as a disposable bike

Recall history? The largest manufacturer of "lugged" carbon fiber frames, by
far, has never had a recall on any of them.

Of course, neither did an early famous-maker monocoque brand either, even
when 16 of 18 of their "advanced" frames we sold one year failed. All with
splits across the top of the downtube.

You can make a nice frame, or a bad frame, out of either technique.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com


<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Larry wrote:
>> With all structural and ride characteristics being equal the monocoques
>> look
>> much better becauses of the shaped tubes and not the traditional round
>> ones.
>> I ride a Look KG386i and love it. I get so many compliments on the unique
>> look.
>
> look at the recall history with lugged frames compared to monocoque; I
> consider a lugged cf frame as a disposable bike
>