|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
carbon monocoque frames
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
carbon monocoque frames
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
carbon monocoque frames
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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
carbon monocoque frames
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! |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
carbon monocoque frames
"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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
carbon monocoque frames
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!! |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
carbon monocoque frames
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! |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
carbon monocoque frames
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
carbon monocoque frames
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Monocoque Bicycle(question) | verb[_2_] | Australia | 13 | August 22nd 07 05:09 AM |
Monocoque carbon | OzCableguy | Australia | 5 | April 28th 07 10:16 PM |
carbon seatposts in carbon frames - TLC? | Yuri Budilov | Techniques | 12 | July 13th 05 10:44 AM |
Looking for value in carbon frames | Walrus | Australia | 11 | February 17th 05 06:18 AM |
No name carbon frames | tonykara | Australia | 19 | July 9th 04 07:59 AM |