I’d thought I’d go for a new roadie, replacing my Kuota, and as I’m quite happy with my two Felts, I think the AR would be a good choice. Especially as I assume the 2010s will fairly priced the coming months and that there seems to be no big changes in the 2011 AR lineup.
However, I am not sure whether I’ll go for the AR1 frameset and build it up myself or if I’ll go for the cheaper AR3 and put on my carbon wheels for racing.
What are actually the differences between the AR1 frame and the frame on the AR3? Just the choice of carbon fiber? I’ve seen AR’s with the head tube sticking up way above the top tube, and I have also seen those with the head tube almot in a horizontal line with the TT. Is this just depending on what size it is?
Unfortunately I don’t have a Felt dealer within reach, so it’s hard for me to go and have a real look…
The cost difference is in the carbon. There is a brief discussion of the head tube issue in the new Procycling issue. Given the handle bar drop and low top-tube, most people would actaully ride an AR with some spacers under the stem if the head-tube was the length of a typical TT frame. Felt found the extended headtube was more aero than the shallow angled stem (-6 degree, rather than a -17) most people would be inclined to ride. I don’t know if the older ARs had a shorter headtube. I don’t remember noticing the long head-tube until last year.
Thanks for the input. Digging into the geometry charts of the 2009 Felt catalog shows that the head tubes were 16 mm shorter than what they are today. That might be wise, just to get rid of those extra spacers.
I have also read (on the weight weenie board I believe) that the AR1 frames were substantially heavier than the claimed ~1055 g. Anyone with any information about that? Not that it matters that much, but I think it was reported that the bare frame (54 cm) was something like 1200+ g.
Also, while I’m at it… Are there any “lab test data” of the AR frame with respect to stiffness and aerodynamics?
FWIW, I’ve built up my 56cm 09 AR4 w/ Zipp 404 tubulars, DA7900 and other mods and it came in at under 16lbs. including pedals and cage. I’m guessing you could build an AR1 with race wheels under 15 lbs.
I know they have been changing the layup of the carbon fiber, so the 2010 and 2011 frames could be significantly different from the 2009 model. I think most of the aero road frames can be built for a sub 15 lbs race weight. I have one of the Litespeed C1s and it comes out at 15.25 with 1,500 gram tubular,but no real effort to save weight. The aero advantage is hard to quantify, but it is definitely noticable on downhills. I can easily out-coast anyone on a regular frame. I would guess a good aero frame is a free 10-15 watts.
Going aero will probably make more difference than a few grams on the frame. At least that is how I tend to build up my bikes nowadays. If the AR1 frame weight is slightly above 1200 g, that is not such a big issue performancewise. However, it would be more an issue of Felt’s credibility if they are claiming their frames are 20% lighter than what they really are. Perhaps there is an explanation to this as well, but I haven’t seen any other “real” weights of the AR1 around.
Going aero will probably make more difference than a few grams on the frame. At least that is how I tend to build up my bikes nowadays. If the AR1 frame weight is slightly above 1200 g, that is not such a big issue performancewise. However, it would be more an issue of Felt’s credibility if they are claiming their frames are 20% lighter than what they really are. Perhaps there is an explanation to this as well, but I haven’t seen any other “real” weights of the AR1 around.
What about a 16% difference in claimed weight vs real weight? Felt claims 1055 for frame and 350g for fork. Real weights appear to be closer to 1233 and 397g. That is over weigh by 16%. Maybe SD can explain why? Unless of course they weigh the smallest frame size without paint and RD hanger and list that as production weight?
Also, to answer your original question, my understanding on the differences between the AR1 and AR3 is weight and responsiveness due to the carbon layup. I believe the 2010 AR3 uses the same frame and layup as the 2009 AR1. Both should be equally stiff as I know that Felt tries to match stiffness within its ranges (AR, F series). I can tell you that my 09 AR4 is VERY stiff. I’m a pretty strong guy and I don’t notice flex when I’m out of the saddle. For comparison, I also have an 08 Specialized Tarmac S-Works SL2 and the AR4 feels almost equally stiff to that bike, though not as lively.
Personally, I’d just get the AR that looked better to me if the prices were similar. I’d lean towards an AR3 and make some upgrades if there was more than a $500 difference in price between the bikes, though. Good luck with your purchase - you really can’t go wrong.
Going aero will probably make more difference than a few grams on the frame. At least that is how I tend to build up my bikes nowadays. If the AR1 frame weight is slightly above 1200 g, that is not such a big issue performancewise. However, it would be more an issue of Felt’s credibility if they are claiming their frames are 20% lighter than what they really are. Perhaps there is an explanation to this as well, but I haven’t seen any other “real” weights of the AR1 around.
What about a 16% difference in claimed weight vs real weight? Felt claims 1055 for frame and 350g for fork. Real weights appear to be closer to 1233 and 397g. That is over weigh by 16%. Maybe SD can explain why? Unless of course they weigh the smallest frame size without paint and RD hanger and list that as production weight?
Seems very odd. I have a 56cm frame sample that I’ve been riding that is 1088g with the w/b bolts. I wonder what model year this frame is and if he purchased a Garmin Team prototype from the 2008 Tour?