…i emailed a bike mfg about a carbon model of one of their bikes. i wanted to know about pricing, build options and how it might compare to the R2.5 - in their opinion.
the response i got was kind of surprising b/c the guy said that lugged carbon frames are inferior compared to monocoque frames - in fact, he was adamant about it.
what is the real difference? the mfg’er was talking about how the EFDBE or whatever tests show that mono frames are WAY stiffer, and are lighter and more comfortable overall…anyone care to enlighten me?
kind of ruined my buzz about my never-appreaing R2.5 on order, but i took it with a grain of salt…just had never heard such a rant against lugged frames.
Gerard can explain the construction of either better than anybody, but tonight on our group ride I had a real good look at a guy’s lugged carbon Look. Not sure which model but it was nice.
Lugs really look sexy, whether on classic steel or modern carbon.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------the mfg’er was talking about how the EFDBE or whatever tests show that mono frames are WAY stiffer, and are lighter and more comfortable overall…anyone care to enlighten me?
Interesting reason for him to choose to support his theory on strength:
The R2.5 was the first frame in its weight category to obtain the coveted EFBe certification. This means that the frame has survived what is arguably the toughest fatigue test in the bike industry. In fact, the R2.5 has survived it twice, because when EFBe couldn’t break the frame in the first 100,000 cycles we asked them to run another 100,000 cycles. The frame still wouldn’t budge. That’s why we have no problem offering a limited lifetime warranty on all our frames. Keep in mind that most manufacturers do not dare send their frames to EFBe, and of all the frames that are sent, roughly two-thirds of them do not even make it through the first 100,000 cycles.
It’s not as simple as saying lug vs monocoque. It is more to do with quality of construction, type of carbon, type of bonding process, and experience. With this in mind you could buy bad versions of each. From what i’ve seen the Cervelo won’t be one of these.
First off, I doubt you talked to a manufacturer. I think you more likely talked to a distributor. AS with almost every monocoque carbon product out there, the name on the bike is not the name of the guys who built it. That may or may not make a difference in the grand scheme of things, but is worth understanding.
Secondly, there are a long list of real-world limitations to monocoque construction. The primary one is fit. The majority of monocoque configurations have a much shorter size run than do the lugged bikes. The molds for the frame components are expensive and once produced are difficult to alter. Manufacturers have to sell a lot of a given bike to recoup the mold cost.
I would suggest a greater difference than “monocoque vs. lugged” is the difference between how they fit you. Finding a good fitting monocoque bike might be tricky simply becasue the choices are a little narrower in number. There seems to be a larger selection of lugged bikes in a wider variety of geometries and sizes. To me, that is a big plus in the lugged construction category.
I like monocoque construction and have owned a couple (Kestrels, a Kuota for about a day) but have settled on my R2.5 road bike since it fits me well. I also have a new Guru Carbonio Tri frame I am thinking of building up- a round tube, carbon lugged hand made carbon fiber frame made at Guru’s factory in Quebec. The dimensions, right down to the height of the head tube, are perfect for me.
Hey, if the fit of the Carbonio is on the money for you, you got to build it up, Tom. Personally, the jury is out on the aethetics of it. I find the length to depth dimensions on the tubes not pleasing to the eye. But, then it would be a pretty dull world if we all liked the same thing (although, ordering would be easier!).
I don’t have much to add, the proof is in the pudding. We make both. The best construction method depends on what you’re trying to do, a dogmatic approach is not really that useful. It’s like frame material, it’s not what you use, it’s how you use it.
I don’t know who this manufacturer is, but right off the bat it’s clear he doesn’t know what he is talking about. He says monocoque is lighter, yet all the world’s lightest frames (Calfee, Parlee, Scott, Cervelo) aren’t monocoques. Three of those four are lugged, the Scott is a variation of lugged.
Calfee has a white paper on different materials and construction techniques for bikes: http://calfeedesign.com/Calfee_TWP.pdf It’s an interesting read, and avoids any serious pitch for their own designs.