Carbon frame quality

[nbfman]

Mulling the purchase of a fancy frame to take me through the next 10 yrs, I went to the LBS recently to look at high-end carbon ones from top brands. Specifically, they had Colnago C50, Look 595, and Trek Madone 5/6. I was mainly interested in Colnago because I've heard great things from owners and have always liked the paint job. The LBS guy, however, straight out told me that the quality of carbon on Trek frames could not be matched, owing to the size of corporate investment Trek makes in eliminating voids.

I recognized the technical stuff as straight out of the Trek marketing material. But it made me wonder how much of a difference there really was in the quality of carbon (voids and anything else) for these top quality frames and on what tangible impact (susceptibility to crack over time, more weight for same stiffness, whatever else ..) the differences made. Anyone care to share what they know? I've seen cross-section photos of bad carbon tubes, where large gaps were all over the place. But what about the top-grade frames?

I'm aware that at my meager level of skill and limited time on the saddle, I will probably be happy with any of the above models, not to mention many others not listed, so long as the fit and other intangibles are right. Even so, I thought I would try to get some insight from more experienced folks out there.

Thanks for any input.

 

[alienator]

Mulling the purchase of a fancy frame to take me through the next 10 yrs, I went to the LBS recently to look at high-end carbon ones from top brands. Specifically, they had Colnago C50, Look 595, and Trek Madone 5/6. I was mainly interested in Colnago because I've heard great things from owners and have always liked the paint job. The LBS guy, however, straight out told me that the quality of carbon on Trek frames could not be matched, owing to the size of corporate investment Trek makes in eliminating voids.

I recognized the technical stuff as straight out of the Trek marketing material. But it made me wonder how much of a difference there really was in the quality of carbon (voids and anything else) for these top quality frames and on what tangible impact (susceptibility to crack over time, more weight for same stiffness, whatever else ..) the differences made. Anyone care to share what they know? I've seen cross-section photos of bad carbon tubes, where large gaps were all over the place. But what about the top-grade frames?

I'm aware that at my meager level of skill and limited time on the saddle, I will probably be happy with any of the above models, not to mention many others not listed, so long as the fit and other intangibles are right. Even so, I thought I would try to get some insight from more experienced folks out there.

Thanks for any input.

The salesman wasn't too informed. I'd wager to say that there might be some Taiwanese or Chinese factories whose investments have been at least that big. Many top brands--Specialized, Ridley, Pinarello, Colnago, Cervelo--have their bikes made in Asian factories. Trek is welcome to claim no one else can match their quality, but it's a claim that was little chance of standing up to scrutiny. Colnago's top frame, the CX-1, is made in the Far East. I'm willing to be that Ernesto wouldn't allow such a premier frame to be anything less than equal to all the rest of the best. Trek orders its CF, while Time actually makes it's own CF and CF matte....as does Giant. Maybe Giant and Time should claim the title as "Better than the Rest." Look's been on the forefront of CF frame development and production since CF came to the cycling scene, and Look has, in addition to a wealth of CF know-how and cutting edge technology, vastly more experience than Trek. Maybe Look should claim the "King of CF" title.

The truth is that there are very few badly made frames out there. Spending more money basically only gets you lower weight, flashier finishes, more exotic "features," or just more cachet. None of that makes much of a difference when pedaling. A case in point would be Pedal Force frames. They're frames from the Far East with Pedal Force decals slapped on, that are sold for that metaphorical dime. They are, universally considered to be great frames.

I ride a Look 595, but honestly, I bought it because when I rode one for a few hours, I liked the way it suited me, and also because the way 595's look really pushes all my fun buttons. These reasons are the only real reasons to buy a particular bike: you like the way it looks, and you get excited about riding it; and it fits you correctly and is a pleasure, not torture, to ride. Depending on your proclivities, such a frame could be a Pinarello Prince Carbon or a Scattante, Performance Bike's house brand. There is no reason to expect one to have a better CF layup than the other.

 

[Peter@vecchios]

Mulling the purchase of a fancy frame to take me through the next 10 yrs, I went to the LBS recently to look at high-end carbon ones from top brands. Specifically, they had Colnago C50, Look 595, and Trek Madone 5/6. I was mainly interested in Colnago because I've heard great things from owners and have always liked the paint job. The LBS guy, however, straight out told me that the quality of carbon on Trek frames could not be matched, owing to the size of corporate investment Trek makes in eliminating voids.

I recognized the technical stuff as straight out of the Trek marketing material. But it made me wonder how much of a difference there really was in the quality of carbon (voids and anything else) for these top quality frames and on what tangible impact (susceptibility to crack over time, more weight for same stiffness, whatever else ..) the differences made. Anyone care to share what they know? I've seen cross-section photos of bad carbon tubes, where large gaps were all over the place. But what about the top-grade frames?

I'm aware that at my meager level of skill and limited time on the saddle, I will probably be happy with any of the above models, not to mention many others not listed, so long as the fit and other intangibles are right. Even so, I thought I would try to get some insight from more experienced folks out there.

Thanks for any input.

OCLV is what every carbon frame maker strives for..squished well, no bubbles. Trek has just 'TM' it.

How it rides to you and how it fits is far more important than who makes it. Many carbon frames are made in the same factories in Aisa and they are very good at what they do. Good design, good frame. They make it exactly the way the designers ask them to.

There is no reason to buy a Trek because it is made in the US(in fact, many of their carbon frames are made 'over there'.

Remember something else. There is no such thing as a 'Colnago' factory. All his frames are outsourced to other factories in Italy and in Asia. Same for lots of others, like Merckx and DeRosa.

Ride, fit, comfort with the bike shop, looks, coffee shop points if that matters...

 

[pudster]

I think that these days most carbon frames are like buying apples from Safeway or apples from King Supers. There are some differences but not a lot. I think the most important thing to consider these days is the shop you are buying it from. Are they going to do a good fit for you. Change out the stem and saddle if you are not comfortable and take care of you even well after they have got there money from you. If you can't find a good shop in your area I would not know what to tell you but a good shop that knows there stuff and takes care of you is just as important as the bike frame and I think maybe even a little bit more important. Just my feelings on this.

 

[freeagent35]

All due respect, if you are looking for a bike for the next 10 years, carbon would not be my first choice; titanium would be. First of all, titanium has basically a zero fatigue factor. Secondly, it is a lot more durable as to impacts. That said, I have two carbon bikes (Look KX Light and Raleigh Prestige) and a Litespeed Vortex. I like the Raleigh, but use it on my Computrainer as I only need two on the road (one for climbing; Litespeed, and one for TT/all around; the Look). I personally would try to find a good carbon frame for as little as I could. I paid $800 for the KX brand new from EDiscountbike.com and have absolutely been thrilled with it. At that price, if it takes a crash and/or is destroyed by impact damage (which is a problem with carbon, especially the really light stuff they are making now) it won't be the end of the world. Also, after 4 or 5 years of hard riding I just don't trust a lightweight carbon fork anymore. At the end of the day, are you a really fast enough that a couple of grams will make a difference or is it for show? That's the difference with "top of the line" ($5k plus) and a mid level bike, in my opinion. For me, $2500 is as much as I will spend on something that is going to be ridden hard and fast for 5 years and then traded for something else. Good luck, whatever you decide.

 

[nbfman]

Thanks, all, for the input. I guess I'm not surprised to hear the difference in carbon is minmal these days. If carbon frames produced in Asia are that good, owing to large investments by Asian manufacturers in the technology, what does this say about custom carbon frames? Do they just assemble frame parts made elsewhere, as with steel tubes and lug sets? Also, what are your thoughts on "monocoque"?

Anyway, Alienator's reasons for getting the Look 595 resonate. For the few machines I've bought in my life, I chose them because the combo of ride, price, color, image, .... just got me psyched to ride the thing.

A good LBS is definitely a huge plus.

Lastly, Ti is sort-of in the running, and I actually test road a Merlin some time back. In JP, Panasonic offers a Ti frame and advertises custom dimensions. I don't suppose any one out there has experience with Panasonic Ti frames?

Thanks again,

 

[mrklein]

Thanks, all, for the input. I guess I'm not surprised to hear the difference in carbon is minmal these days. If carbon frames produced in Asia are that good, owing to large investments by Asian manufacturers in the technology, what does this say about custom carbon frames? Do they just assemble frame parts made elsewhere, as with steel tubes and lug sets? Also, what are your thoughts on "monocoque"?

Anyway, Alienator's reasons for getting the Look 595 resonate. For the few machines I've bought in my life, I chose them because the combo of ride, price, color, image, .... just got me psyched to ride the thing.

A good LBS is definitely a huge plus.

Lastly, Ti is sort-of in the running, and I actually test road a Merlin some time back. In JP, Panasonic offers a Ti frame and advertises custom dimensions. I don't suppose any one out there has experience with Panasonic Ti frames?

Thanks again,

Two guys from the local shop (a Trek Dealer) went to some kind of Trek dealer show at which they said they were shown cut away sectons of different frames. The Orbea was one I remember and several other well known brands and all supposedly had voids which were filled with some kind of "bondo" (my term).
Amazingly the Trek had no such voids. I have no idea about this except that it has made we ponder the matter you raised. I really started to think about it when I saw a bike on sale at Performance with what they call a high modulus monoque frame, Ultegra parts, decent wheels, bars, stem, posts-nothing throw away for about $1400.00 U.S. Then I get home a new Colorado Cyclist catalog was in the box offering this beautiful Time frame for about $5000.00. The Time is better looking (IMHO) and lighter than the Performace but the price difference is so great. If you rode them blind folded you would crash. Again I think the Time is reallt cool but is it a better quality frame? The lighter weight and looks are worth somthing and if you have the money and like it great. But it does make me wonder how different are they?