Saw the new '11 catalog. Noticed the S curved down tube is gone. Why?
http://www.meridian-cycles.com/images/Felt_Bikes_2011/2011%20Performance_Catalog.pdf
how did you come about finding the info on meridian cycles website?
Also it looks a little like that curve is there. hard to tell from those photos though.
The catalog was posted on another forum that I read.
To me it looks like the S curved down tube is gone and the old front wheel cut out is back? What gives?
This should have the answer.
http://www.slowtwitch.com/Products/Tri_Bike_by_brand/Felt/Felt_s_DA_white_paper_1472.html
This should have the answer.
http://www.slowtwitch.com/Products/Tri_Bike_by_brand/Felt/Felt_s_DA_white_paper_1472.html
Thanks Gio, no offense but did you even read the white paper? Sorry but it doesn’t have the answer. It just talks about the technology used to design the frame, build process, carbon fiber in out technology…etc. Shows 1 graph without a legend. So I’m guessing only Tom might have the answer, but it will be ultimately up to SuperDave to chime in and see why the change in the downtube design if the lazy S shaped downtube was so much faster.
So there is some conflict in the pictures of what has been released of the “production Felt DA” and I’m just curious why the change in the design?
- From Tour of California:
http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/5917/feltdafullview600.jpg
- From Tour of California
http://img841.imageshack.us/img841/997/2011feltda05600.jpg
- Cyclingnews
http://img840.imageshack.us/img840/5972/screenshot20100822at105.png
- Felt Press Launch day July, 2010
http://img829.imageshack.us/img829/7720/feltda1.jpg
- Felt Press Launch day July, 2010
http://img835.imageshack.us/img835/387/feltbayonetfork2011da.jpg
Now we have the 2010/2011 Felt catalog picture
- Felt Catalog
http://img832.imageshack.us/img832/5972/screenshot20100822at105.png
So in the time span from end of July until the release of the 2010/2011 catalog this month we have gone from a S lazy downtube to the old school DA downtube with a noticeable front wheel cut out. Why go back to old technology and design if the lazy S is so much faster and superior? This all took place in the matter of a few weeks? Or is this just some error in the 2011 catalog?
Here is one more of Terrenzo Bozzone on his 2011 Felt DA with the lazy S downtube.
http://img821.imageshack.us/img821/5154/screenshot20100822at112.png
I’m interested as well, but I think I saw Superdave mentioning once that the smaller sizes (think they run 650 wheels too) of the new DA will have the old cutout. Did I dream it?
Lots of angst and fear, but I thought I’ll give the thread a bump so then the man sees it!
My guesses:
- Too costly to mass produce or
- Failed stress testing or
- The smaller sizes won’t have the curve (and the bike shown is smaller size)
Probably none of the above but thought I’d take a stab at it.
@ Greg, those are some interesting thoughts.
However if Felt does all of their own design and control all of the carbon layup with their inside out technique if not sure why a lazy S in the downtube would be any more expensive? Once you create the mold that should be the most expensive part.
If it failed stress testing, I would assume that would have shown up during all of their fancy testing Computational Fluid Dyanamics testing and CAD. Not sure they would let that past through all the preliminary work. Also haven’t they had pro’s on the bike? If any failure in the design was there it must have shown in the prototype testing before they let pros ride it?
Yeah I think maybe the smaller sizes not having the curve might be the best possible idea so far as Baboonator mentioned.
I would assume that the catalog was an early sketch up that never got fixed and probably wasn’t meant for the general public but just to give dealers an idea of the line up.
So when is the release date for the DA?
SuperDave, just curious if you have any light/info to shed? Thanks.
On a related note…I didn’t notice this previously…but how in the heck does Felt get a “pass” from the UCI on the apparent fillet between the head tube and the downtube that was deemed verboten on the Shiv even after the bayonet fork was removed (i.e. the “Shiv2”)? See yellow circle below:
Hmmmm…
Tom, didn’t SuperDave say that Felt had been working with the UCI during the whole process and has had their approval on the design? But I agree that it looks eerily similar.
Tom, didn’t SuperDave say that Felt had been working with the UCI during the whole process and has had their approval on the design? But I agree that it looks eerily similar.
Apparently, Specialized said that same things as well…look what that got them :-/
On a related note…I didn’t notice this previously…but how in the heck does Felt get a “pass” from the UCI on the apparent fillet between the head tube and the downtube that was deemed verboten on the Shiv even after the bayonet fork was removed (i.e. the “Shiv2”)? See yellow circle below:
Hmmmm…
The tube can have a maximum depth of 80mm and a fillet within the inside shape of the front triangle, not 80mm plus an inside and outside fillet. There is no provision for adding a fillet to the OUTSIDE of the front triangle, so if there is one, the tube has to be under 80. At the minimum width (25mm) the tube can’t be 80mm anyhow. Taking the tube from its 25mm x 75mm shape and adding depth as it adds width to accept the headset/fork allows the shape you see in both of the DA images (curve DT and straight w/ recess) above.
Tom, surely you’re not the type to see an off-angle photo and assume that the two bikes (DA and Shiv) in question are the same (or even similar)
I mean afterall, wheels are wheels, and tires are tires. Those 58mm Deep Gigantex rims can’t be any slower than Zipp 58mm deep rims, right?
The tube has to be 80mm, not 80mm plus fillet. There is no provision for adding a fillet to the OUTSIDE of the front triangle, so if there is one, the tube has to be under 80. At the minimum width (25mm) the tube can’t be 80mm anyhow.
Tom, surely you’re not the type to see an off-angle photo and assume that the two bikes in question are the same (or even similar) I mean afterall, wheels are wheels, and tires are tires. Those 58mm Deep Gigantex rims can’t be any slower than Zipp 58mm deep rims, right?
I don’t believe it until I see the “virtual bandsaw” 
The tube has to be 80mm, not 80mm plus fillet. There is no provision for adding a fillet to the OUTSIDE of the front triangle, so if there is one, the tube has to be under 80. At the minimum width (25mm) the tube can’t be 80mm anyhow.
Tom, surely you’re not the type to see an off-angle photo and assume that the two bikes in question are the same (or even similar) I mean afterall, wheels are wheels, and tires are tires. Those 58mm Deep Gigantex rims can’t be any slower than Zipp 58mm deep rims, right?
I don’t believe it until I see the “virtual bandsaw”
What about a photo with some calipers showing the DT is less than 80mm deep?
The tube has to be 80mm, not 80mm plus fillet. There is no provision for adding a fillet to the OUTSIDE of the front triangle, so if there is one, the tube has to be under 80. At the minimum width (25mm) the tube can’t be 80mm anyhow.
Tom, surely you’re not the type to see an off-angle photo and assume that the two bikes in question are the same (or even similar) I mean afterall, wheels are wheels, and tires are tires. Those 58mm Deep Gigantex rims can’t be any slower than Zipp 58mm deep rims, right?
I don’t believe it until I see the “virtual bandsaw”
What about a photo with some calipers showing the DT is less than 80mm deep?
With, or without, the “S” bump? After all, a caliper measurement in one location doesn’t necessarily define the “box”, no?
The tube has to be 80mm, not 80mm plus fillet. There is no provision for adding a fillet to the OUTSIDE of the front triangle, so if there is one, the tube has to be under 80. At the minimum width (25mm) the tube can’t be 80mm anyhow.
Tom, surely you’re not the type to see an off-angle photo and assume that the two bikes in question are the same (or even similar) I mean afterall, wheels are wheels, and tires are tires. Those 58mm Deep Gigantex rims can’t be any slower than Zipp 58mm deep rims, right?
I don’t believe it until I see the “virtual bandsaw”
What about a photo with some calipers showing the DT is less than 80mm deep?
With, or without, the “S” bump? After all, a caliper measurement in one location doesn’t necessarily define the “box”, no?
That depends on who you ask. There are dozens of bikes that don’t fit an 80mm box of infinite length.
Virtual bandsaw indeed.
-SD