Vitus Carbon frames -- flexy?

I'm being offered a Vitus Carbon/Kevlar bike. All tubes are carbon/kevlar, rear triangle too. Other
than that, I don't know much about the bike, except the main tubes look fatter than those old 979s'.
It's very light and seems a good deal. However, I'm concerned it might be a bit flexy. It's hilly
around here, and while light bikes may be nice for climbing, flexy ones are scary on steep, twisty
descents. I'll take safe/easy descending any day. Has anyone ridden one of these? Feedback? This is
large, 60-62cm frame. I'm 6', ~175#.

Matt O.

 

I ride a 992 in Aluminum. The tubes are also slightly oversized. The bike is quite stiff, although
not punishingly so. I weigh around 180. My frame of reference (sorry) includes a steel and a carbon
road bike. If what they say about diameter being more important to stiffness than material, my
experience may be applicable. I really like the ride of the Vitus.

Rob

Matt O'Toole wrote:
> I'm being offered a Vitus Carbon/Kevlar bike. All tubes are carbon/kevlar, rear triangle too.
> Other than that, I don't know much about the bike, except the main tubes look fatter than those
> old 979s'. It's very light and seems a good deal. However, I'm concerned it might be a bit flexy.
> It's hilly around here, and while light bikes may be nice for climbing, flexy ones are scary on
> steep, twisty descents. I'll take safe/easy descending any day. Has anyone ridden one of these?
> Feedback? This is large, 60-62cm frame. I'm 6', ~175#.
>
> Matt O.

 

In article <[email protected]>, Matt O'Toole <[email protected]> wrote:
>I'm being offered a Vitus Carbon/Kevlar bike. All tubes are carbon/kevlar, rear triangle too. Other
>than that, I don't know much about the bike, except the main tubes look fatter than those old
>979s'. It's very light and seems a good deal. However, I'm concerned it might be a bit flexy. It's
>hilly around here, and while light bikes may be nice for climbing, flexy ones are scary on steep,
>twisty descents. I'll take safe/easy descending any day. Has anyone ridden one of these? Feedback?
>This is large, 60-62cm frame. I'm 6', ~175#.

I am your size. I have not ridden that bike. I have ridden Alan/Guerciotti bikes in that sort of
size and same design. Extreme noodle. Not unridable, but kind of a joke bike when built that large.
I lived in constant fear of breaking the fork.

The other thing to consider is the actual weight of the bike. The problem with those big noodly
glued frames with their heavy lugs is that they usually just aren't that light. Let the scale do the
talking if weight is the thing. The modern aluminum TIG-welded disposable road bike is quite a bit
lighter than many of the lugged aluminum ones were.

I still like seeing Sean Kelly ride Paris Roubaix on a Vitus though.

--Paul

 

In article <_Bbza.35351$A%[email protected]>, Paul Southworth
<[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, Matt O'Toole <[email protected]> wrote:
>>I'm being offered a Vitus Carbon/Kevlar bike. All tubes are carbon/kevlar, rear triangle too.
>>Other than that, I don't know much about the bike, except the main tubes look fatter than those
>>old 979s'. It's very light and seems a good deal. However, I'm concerned it might be a bit flexy.
>>It's hilly around here, and while light bikes may be nice for climbing, flexy ones are scary on
>>steep, twisty descents. I'll take safe/easy descending any day. Has anyone ridden one of these?
>>Feedback? This is large, 60-62cm frame. I'm 6', ~175#.
>
>I am your size. I have not ridden that bike. I have ridden Alan/Guerciotti bikes in that sort of
>size and same design.

The OP says that the tubes are larger than the 979. Plus the 979 Carbon had no kevlar and an
aluminum rear triangle. So this frame is very probably not comparable to the old Alan frames.

>Extreme noodle. Not unridable, but kind of a joke bike when built that large. I lived in constant
>fear of breaking the fork.

I put something like 30k hard miles on a 59cm aluminum 979 with no problems. I love hills and am a
reasonably fast descender. Actually I was faster down hills when I rode the Vitus but it wasn't the
bike... The fork isn't any less stiff than an Ouzo Pro. Descending on the 979 took some getting used
to but much of that was the very quick steering from the steep head tube angle.

But I don't think this frame is one of the old whippy Vituses (Vitii?) so the point is moot.

>I still like seeing Sean Kelly ride Paris Roubaix on a Vitus though.

On my planet Kelly hasn't ridden Paris Roubaix or a Vitus for many years. Is your planet's Greg
Lemond still thin?

Eric

 

On Thu, 22 May 2003 20:26:33 GMT, "Matt O'Toole" <[email protected]> wrote:

>I'm being offered a Vitus Carbon/Kevlar bike. All tubes are carbon/kevlar, rear triangle too. Other
>than that, I don't know much about the bike, except the main tubes look fatter than those old
>979s'. It's very light and seems a good deal. However, I'm concerned it might be a bit flexy. It's
>hilly around here, and while light bikes may be nice for climbing, flexy ones are scary on steep,
>twisty descents. I'll take safe/easy descending any day. Has anyone ridden one of these? Feedback?
>This is large, 60-62cm frame. I'm 6', ~175#.
>
>Matt O.
>

I had a Vitus 'Carbone 9' some years ago. Seat tube seperated from the BB lug after about 2 years.
Sent it to HH Racing for repair. Seat tube seperated again about a year later. Now it's hanging in
my garage as a keepsake....

 

[email protected] (Eric Murray) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> In article <_Bbza.35351$A%[email protected]>, Paul Southworth
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >In article <[email protected]>, Matt O'Toole <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>I'm being offered a Vitus Carbon/Kevlar bike. All tubes are carbon/kevlar, rear triangle too

<snip>
> The OP says that the tubes are larger than the 979. Plus the 979 Carbon had no kevlar and an
> aluminum rear triangle. So this frame is very probably not comparable to the old Alan frames.
>

There were several versions of the Vitus aluminum lugged/carbon tubed frames. "Carbone 3" frames
were 3 main tubes of carbon fiber with an aluminum rear triangle. "Carbone 9" frames had all of the
above with the rear triangle built from carbon fiber. "Carbon Kevlar" frames are recognizable by the
appearance of gold-colored Kevlar fibers along the tubes- I *think* they were available in "3" and
"9" versions also... but my memory's fading.

> >Extreme noodle. Not unridable, but kind of a joke bike when built that large. I lived in constant
> >fear of breaking the fork.
>

The fork for all the carbon models was the standard Vitus aluminum fork.

Unfortunately, I never rode one- I'm 6-foot-4, 210 pounds, and long of torso. I was happy enough
with my cheap steel bikes.

Jeff

 

Eric Murray wrote:

>>I still like seeing Sean Kelly ride Paris Roubaix on a Vitus though.
>
>
> On my planet Kelly hasn't ridden Paris Roubaix or a Vitus for many years. Is your planet's Greg
> Lemond still thin?

So your planet doesn't have photographs or film?

 

In article <[email protected]>, Eric Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <_Bbza.35351$A%[email protected]>, Paul Southworth
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>The OP says that the tubes are larger than the 979. Plus the 979 Carbon had no kevlar and an
>aluminum rear triangle. So this frame is very probably not comparable to the old Alan frames.

I'm sure that will be a big relief to him.

>>I still like seeing Sean Kelly ride Paris Roubaix on a Vitus though.
>
>On my planet Kelly hasn't ridden Paris Roubaix or a Vitus for many years.

On my planet you can watch it over and over again through the magic of video tape.

>Is your planet's Greg Lemond still thin?

He looks fantastic and wins the Tour more than once a year. How does he do it?

--Paul