I am thinking about a Cervelo R2.5 for next year and have a Cannondale Caad 5 bike now, but something has bothered me lately…
Cervelo test their frames and get EFBe High Performance (not Top Performance) for small frame sizes like 51cm - e.g. the R2.5. Question: shouldn’t the test frame sizes be standardized towards the larger frame sizes, say 58 or 60? If a 51cm frame passes does that mean a 60cm frame will pass?
Anyways, Cervelo in answer to a question about fatigue life for a P3 frame on their website say that “The best and arguably toughest fatigue test in the industry is the EFBe test (EFBe is an independent test lab in Germany). Their test involves a set-up simulating a rider standing on the pedals. In the EFBe test, a frame had to withstand 100,000 cycles at a pedal force of 1200N to pass the test. The P3 (and the other Cervélo models we have tested at EFBe), pass this test. The end result is that a P3 is likely to outlast your desire to ride and all of your other options.”
By inference I believe Cervelo are making the same inference for their other frames that pass the test.
However Cannondale also pass the test and get Top Performance, in particular their Caad 7 frame in the 58cm size. However the Caad 7 owner’s supplement says that the frame is good for only a season or two of competitive racing and therefore will not “outlast your desire to ride and all of your other options.” What gives? Any thoughts?
I hope Gerard from Cervelo weighs in. ALL Cervelos pass EFBe testing. And all Cervelos have lifetime warranties. So even if your P3 or R2.5 didn’t outlast all your desires, Cervelo would give you a new one. But they say it ought to, and they stand behind it. For more on this check out the thread on Aero Frames & Wind Angles, which digressed into general frame design and covers a lot, including some on the EFBe testing with some commentary from Gerard.
Don’t C’dales also carry a lifetime warranty? So I don’t know why Cannondale wouldn’t say the same as Cervelo, but I offer a couple of possibilities
The Optimo aluminum made by Alcoa that C’dale uses is not a corrosion resistant as whatever Cervelo is using in their Alu frames (non-issue for the Carbon R2.5, which will not corrode 'cause it isn’t aluminum). So it wears out sooner. I have NO idea if this is the case, I doubt it, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t so. But that wouldn’t be affected by racing vs. not racing; it would apply to all riders, so any C’dale would only last a couple years, which I know isn’t the case. Unless the Alu in the racing frames is treated/painted/etc. differently than the recreational bikes. Again, seems unlikely.
C’dale assumes that racing will beat up your frame enough (I’ve heard that the thin walls of some of the racing C’dale bikes can dent easily, but that is just 3rd hand and was in reference to a Scalpel, which will take more abuse since it is an MTB) that it will have enough damage that it might be sketchy to keep riding it since on of those dents that is a little bigger might have some cracks that would get worse. But that isn’t a universal truth, so that also seems doubtful.
C’dale wants to sell you a new bike in 2 years. They want to give you the latest and greatest, at the latest and greatest price. That would seem to make the most sense to me. Sell more bikes. Make more money.
Yes, but I thought racing invalidates your warranty. I race and I don’t want to be stuck with a cracked frame. I ride a 60cm frame and weigh about 170-175lbs and knowing a 51cm frame passes is little comfort.
Cervelo or Cannodale or both void a warranty from racing?
What good is a warranty if the people who really need it don’t benefit…
I definitely wouldn’t buy from a company who voided a warranty on a bike that was raced. That would be the big thing.
I wouldn’t sweat the EFBe testing. If a frame failed, that is a problem. But don’t worry about buying a 60cm when a 51cm was tested. Check out the heavy volume we covered in the “Aero Frames & Wind Angles” post…
I am not as familiar with the various test standards and protocols as I would like to be. This type of testing is extremely important in the bicycle industry and the trend to publish results, lead by companies like Cervelo and Cannondale, is a good trend. It gives us a more pragmatic basis for comparison of frames.
Cannondale does indeed provide absolutely superior warranty service based on 6 years experience as a Cannondale retailer and owner.
I don’ know what warraty service from Cervelo is like. Weve never had a bike break. That speaks volumes for me. My impression is that it would be excellent also, based on my other interactions with the company and also from information I hear on this forum.
Quote-The Optimo aluminum made by Alcoa that C’dale uses is not a corrosion resistant as whatever Cervelo is using in their Alu frames.
After repainting many C’Dale and Cervelo frames I can confirm that C’dales are not corrosion resistant. In all cases on the C’dale the paint is bubbling from the corrosion, after paint removal the metal is pitted due to extensive corrosion. WE treat all aluminum frames with a aircraft corrosion coating before painting and this seems to solve the issue on the C’dale.
I have NEVER had a spec of corrosion show up on a Cervelo frame.
Finally we hit an area whaere I can speak intelligently. My background is as a R&D chemist for a company which producers products for use in treating metals prior to painting. Let me assure you that the aluminum which Cannondale & Cervelo use are both very prone to corrosion in their raw state.
Any differences in corrosion resistance after painting has to do with many factors, themost important are; type of surface prep prior to painting, type of paint, amount of paint, how paint is applied, how the frame has been cared for since painting.
I have no first hand knowledge of how these companies process their frames, but I suspect that you have seen more Cannondales with corrosion because their are more Cannondales, and their are more old Cannondales.
quote- I suspect that you have seen more Cannondales with corrosion because their are more Cannondales, and their are more old Cannondales.
This may be the case, although I paint far more Cervelos than C’dales.
I agree that the prep, painting and care of the frame make a difference. In many cases the corrosion starts at a chip, water bottle boss or other vulnerable area.
Just curious, are the Cervelos relatively new that are being painted because the owners want a special look, whereas the Cannondales are older and are being updated?
I have two cervelo’s ('02 soloist and '05 2.5) and can vouch for Cervelo’s AWESOME customer service regarding warranties. I’m a larger rider and race quite a bit and ended up finding a crack in the BB of the soloist after 5000 miles or so. I took my frame in to the place where I bought it and talked with Cervelo. They sent the new frame before receiving my old cracked one. An unbelievably smooth process. If you buy a cervelo, you can count on quick support.
This process was the reason I stuck with cervelo and got a 2.5 vs a Trek 5X00 bike. - E
I would say that many of the C’dales are older than the Cervelos but not in all cases. I have seen frames with massive corrosion that are only 6 months old, not necessarily C’dale. It is suprising to have a paint job which is extremly difficult to remove and has no sign of corrosion have extensive corrosion below. This is not an issue isolated to one manufacture.
I have still not worked on a Cervelo with corrosion even though some of them were abused by there looks.
Paint is permeable to moisture, so even a tough to remove paint will allow water to reach the metal. The metal has to be properly treated underneath the paint to ensure that corrosion doesn’t occur. Most bike manufacturers that I am aware of do not do a very good job of this.
Why all this paint nonsense? Why can’t more companies do what Santa Cruz does to its MTB frames and what Cervelo is doing on its new P3SL - ANODIZE IT!
Paint gives a more options for decoration / esthetics, which is arguably the #1 reason people but a particular model. Also, anodizing is expensive compared to paint, not immune to corrosion, suitable only for Ti, Al, and Mg, more costly to set-up for, and much more difficult to touch up.
I would rethink the Kephos and go with some sort of traditional paint. I know very little about kephos, but the corrosion resistance their website quotes is much less than a good paint job. Just curious what is the puported advantage of this process?
When we started to test at EFBe they indicated they would abolish the 1300N level because they didn’t feel it was relevant for road bikes, just for hardtail mountainbikes. So we tested at the 1200N level they suggested Since then they have changed their minds. There is no real difference and in fact you can convert from one test to the other with pretty good accuracy. For the future we will probably change to get the EFBe certification at 1300N, but it is a bit of an expensive process to go through and it doesn’t add anything real, we already know the frames would pass.
We do not exclude racing, I have no idea why some companies do. Voiding the warranty for racing a racing bike seems illogical to me.
We test various sizes. I believe the R2.5 we sent to EFBe was a 51cm, the P3 was a 58cm, etc. It just depends on what is available. The size has very little effect on the test result, given the usual failure mode of bike frames. The EFBe test puts a disproportionate stress on the bb (which is also why the EFBe test is just one of many that we do), so that is where the frames usually fail and that area does not differ much from size to size.