carbon monocoque frames

(1) carbon monocoque frames: what are the claimed advantages over non-
monocoque frames.

(2) Is there empirical evidence to support the claims.

Thanks.

On Jun 2, 4:24*am, yirgster wrote:
(1) carbon monocoque frames: what are the claimed advantages over non-
monocoque frames.

(2) Is there empirical evidence to support the claims.

Thanks.

It really just depends on how many coques you like to sit on.

landotter wrote:
On Jun 2, 4:24 am, yirgster wrote:
(1) carbon monocoque frames: what are the claimed advantages over non-
monocoque frames.

(2) Is there empirical evidence to support the claims.

Thanks.

It really just depends on how many coques you like to sit on.

Oh, brother.

--
Mike "Rocket J Squirrel"
Bend, Oregon

In article
,
yirgster wrote:

(1) carbon monocoque frames: what are the claimed advantages over
non- monocoque frames.

Some of them look kind of cool.

(2) Is there empirical evidence to support the claims.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

On Jun 2, 8:47*am, Mike Elliott
wrote:
landotter wrote:
On Jun 2, 4:24 am, yirgster wrote:
(1) carbon monocoque frames: what are the claimed advantages over non-
monocoque frames.

(2) Is there empirical evidence to support the claims.

Thanks.

It really just depends on how many coques you like to sit on.

Oh, brother.

I'll be here all week, have a good night everybody!

"yirgster" wrote in message
...
(1) carbon monocoque frames: what are the claimed advantages over non-
monocoque frames.

Cheaper & easier to make a monocoque frame vs one assembled from separate
sections.

(2) Is there empirical evidence to support the claims.

What is the claim? It's more difficult to control things like wall
thicknesses and resin concentrations in a monocoque frame than one built
from smaller sections and assembled. We're seeing an evolution where there
are fewer and fewer true monocoque frames, while on the other hand, the
number of sections (pieces) in non-monocoque frames has come down from what
was seen earlier.

Repairability used to be better on non-monocoque frames, because you could
simply remove a damaged section and install a new one (heat it up to the
point where the adhesive is no longer functional but the tube is still fine,
remove it, glue in a new one). That was then, this is now. Modern frames are
generally built of such light "tubing" that repairs aren't so easily done
that way. The manufacturers will tell you to scrap a damaged frame, while
Calfee says no problem, they can repair most anything (they simply wrap more
layers of carbon over the damaged section, which generally seems to work
very well).

Thanks.

Your welcome.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

On Jun 2, 11:19*am, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
wrote:
"yirgster" wrote in message

...

(1) carbon monocoque frames: what are the claimed advantages over non-
monocoque frames.

Cheaper & easier to make a monocoque frame vs one assembled from separate
sections.

(2) Is there empirical evidence to support the claims.

What is the claim? It's more difficult to control things like wall
thicknesses and resin concentrations in a monocoque frame than one built
from smaller sections and assembled. We're seeing an evolution where there
are fewer and fewer true monocoque frames, while on the other hand, the
number of sections (pieces) in non-monocoque frames has come down from what
was seen earlier.

Repairability used to be better on non-monocoque frames, because you could
simply remove a damaged section and install a new one (heat it up to the
point where the adhesive is no longer functional but the tube is still fine,
remove it, glue in a new one). That was then, this is now. Modern frames are
generally built of such light "tubing" that repairs aren't so easily done
that way. The manufacturers will tell you to scrap a damaged frame, while
Calfee says no problem, they can repair most anything (they simply wrap more
layers of carbon over the damaged section, which generally seems to work
very well).

Thanks.

Your welcome.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

Thanks for your response, Mike!

[what is the claim that monocoque is better ]

I'm going to be buying a carbon frame and in my glancing over things
it seems to me that I see full monocoque appearing more and more. You
know, sort of like it's now the latest. So I assumed, having no
evidence for it, that there would be some proffered claimed as
advantages for full moncoque, wanted to know what they were, and if
there were any validation for them except in the minds of their
manufacturers.

But right, are there downsides too that have some empirical evidence
for that claim also.

Or, are "high end" construction cf frames (whatever that means)
chiefly in the eye of the beholder differentiated objectively by
weight, geometry, things such as reinforcement at the bottom bracket,
and subjectively as per road tests for example at Bicycling Mag and
testrider.com re ride and performance characteristics although these
of lack quantification.

In particular I'm looking at the bikes from neuvation cycling (a
friend just got one) and notice on their site a big announcement that
they will in June start selling a 1000g completely monocoque frame.
This provided the specific motivation for my post.

Btw, the cf bike will become my main bike replacing my Habanero TI
which I like and will definitely keep. But it's definitely heavier and
even more definitely I'm older and it's mostly hills around here which
don't give me a choice but that's what I enjoy riding and seek put
anyway! At my medicare age my friend and I started Monday at 280/Page
Mill, up over to 9, to Felton, back up East Zayante Rd and back. So,
I'm looking for all the small advantages I can get, within monetary
reason, and hope they cumulatively add up to something more
significant. You know, sort of like the backing mantra though not
necessarily all related to weight: look after the ounces and the
pounds will take care of themselves. Of course there's budget.

Any help, advice, comments along these lines (such as your previous
informative reply) are most appreciated!!

On Jun 2, 12:34*pm, yirgster wrote:
On Jun 2, 11:19*am, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
wrote:





"yirgster" wrote in message

....

(1) carbon monocoque frames: what are the claimed advantages over non-
monocoque frames.

Cheaper & easier to make a monocoque frame vs one assembled from separate
sections.

(2) Is there empirical evidence to support the claims.

What is the claim? It's more difficult to control things like wall
thicknesses and resin concentrations in a monocoque frame than one built
from smaller sections and assembled. We're seeing an evolution where there
are fewer and fewer true monocoque frames, while on the other hand, the
number of sections (pieces) in non-monocoque frames has come down from what
was seen earlier.

Repairability used to be better on non-monocoque frames, because you could
simply remove a damaged section and install a new one (heat it up to the
point where the adhesive is no longer functional but the tube is still fine,
remove it, glue in a new one). That was then, this is now. Modern frames are
generally built of such light "tubing" that repairs aren't so easily done
that way. The manufacturers will tell you to scrap a damaged frame, while
Calfee says no problem, they can repair most anything (they simply wrap more
layers of carbon over the damaged section, which generally seems to work
very well).

Thanks.

Your welcome.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

Thanks for your response, Mike!

[what is the claim that monocoque is better ]

I'm going to be buying a carbon frame and in my glancing over things
it seems to me that I see full monocoque appearing more and more. You
know, sort of like it's now the latest. So I assumed, having no
evidence for it, that there would be some proffered claimed as
advantages for full moncoque, wanted to know what they were, and if
there were any validation for them except in the minds of their
manufacturers.

But right, are there downsides too that have some empirical evidence
for that claim also.

Or, are "high end" construction cf frames (whatever that means)
chiefly in the eye of the beholder differentiated objectively by
weight, geometry, things such as reinforcement at the bottom bracket,
and subjectively as per road tests for example at Bicycling Mag and
testrider.com re ride and performance characteristics although these
of lack quantification.

In particular I'm looking at the bikes from neuvation cycling (a
friend just got one) and notice on their site a big announcement that
they will in June start selling a 1000g completely monocoque frame.
This provided the specific motivation for my post.

Btw, the cf bike will become my main bike replacing my Habanero TI
which I like and will definitely keep. But it's definitely heavier and
even more definitely I'm older and it's mostly hills around here which
don't give me a choice but that's what I enjoy riding and seek put
anyway! At my medicare age my friend and I started Monday at 280/Page
Mill, up over to 9, to Felton, back up East Zayante Rd and back. So,
I'm looking for all the small advantages I can get, within monetary
reason, and hope they cumulatively add up to something more
significant. *You know, sort of like the backing mantra though not
necessarily all related to weight: look after the ounces and the
pounds will take care of themselves. Of course there's budget.

Any help, advice, comments along these lines (such as your previous
informative reply) are most appreciated!!- Hide quoted text -

You may want to read Calfee's Technical White Paper on "Bicycle Frame
Materials Comparison with a Focus on Carbon Fiber Construction
Methods"

http://www.calfeedesign.com/whitepaper1.htm

Good Luck!

On 2 jun, 21:34, yirgster wrote:
In particular I'm looking at the bikes from neuvation cycling (a
friend just got one) and notice on their site a big announcement that
they will in June start selling a 1000g completely monocoque frame.
This provided the specific motivation for my post.

Btw, the cf bike will become my main bike replacing my Habanero TI
which I like and will definitely keep. But it's definitely heavier and
even more definitely I'm older and it's mostly hills around here which
don't give me a choice but that's what I enjoy riding and seek put
anyway! At my medicare age my friend and I started Monday at 280/Page
Mill, up over to 9, to Felton, back up East Zayante Rd and back. So,
I'm looking for all the small advantages I can get, within monetary
reason, and hope they cumulatively add up to something more
significant. *You know, sort of like the backing mantra though not
necessarily all related to weight: look after the ounces and the
pounds will take care of themselves. Of course there's budget.

Any help, advice, comments along these lines (such as your previous
informative reply) are most appreciated!!

Don't expect too much of a lighter frame, because the weight
difference is very small compared to the total weight of a bike and
insignificant when considering the weight of bike and rider. The same
components bolted to your 'heavy' Ti frame will result in a 0.5 kg
heavier bike then when they are bolted to the 1000 gr frame you are
looking at now. When I bought my sub 1 kg CF frame I took a 3-5 year
life expectancy into account and this isn't even my main bike. Are you
prepared to do the same? I guess not.

Lou

On Jun 3, 7:33*am, Lou Holtman wrote:
On 2 jun, 21:34, yirgster wrote:



In particular I'm looking at the bikes from neuvation cycling (a
friend just got one) and notice on their site a big announcement that
they will in June start selling a 1000g completely monocoque frame.
This provided the specific motivation for my post.

Btw, the cf bike will become my main bike replacing my Habanero TI
which I like and will definitely keep. But it's definitely heavier and
even more definitely I'm older and it's mostly hills around here which
don't give me a choice but that's what I enjoy riding and seek put
anyway! At my medicare age my friend and I started Monday at 280/Page
Mill, up over to 9, to Felton, back up East Zayante Rd and back. So,
I'm looking for all the small advantages I can get, within monetary
reason, and hope they cumulatively add up to something more
significant. *You know, sort of like the backing mantra though not
necessarily all related to weight: look after the ounces and the
pounds will take care of themselves. Of course there's budget.

Any help, advice, comments along these lines (such as your previous
informative reply) are most appreciated!!

Don't expect too much of a lighter frame, because the weight
difference is very small compared to the total weight of a bike and
insignificant when considering the weight of bike and rider. The same
components bolted to your 'heavy' Ti frame will result in a 0.5 kg
heavier bike *then when they are bolted to the 1000 gr frame you are
looking at now. When I bought my sub 1 kg CF frame I took a 3-5 year
life expectancy into account and this isn't even my main bike. Are you
prepared to do the same? I guess not.

Lou

I still like the idea of natures own CF. See http://www.renovobikes.com/

If I could test ride one and found it ok I'd certainly buy one. What
would they say when you beat them riding a broom handle!

JS.