# The Cinelli XCr is one pretty bike



## nocwrench

Look at this:

http://www.velonews.com/article/92005/cinelli-introduces-its-columbus-xcr-stainless-steel-road


----------



## lousylegs

yes, it is, and it costs a pretty penny also.

i saw the frame at the NAHBS this year, and it is a gorgeous frame. I would love to have one, though I wish that Cinelli still made the Nouvo Corsa that they made a few years ago.


----------



## DS1239622

Meh. Not enough carbon.


----------



## holy cromoly

Beautiful. 

At $3500 though, would have been nice to get a matching stainless fork IMO.

Check out the sweet headbadge.


----------



## nocwrench

Then you'll really not like the fact that the MSRP is actually $4600 U.S. It's not just another carbon fork either, it was specifically designed for this frame. It is also the lightest Columbus fork to date as well.


----------



## holy cromoly

nocwrench said:


> Then you'll really not like the fact that the MSRP is actually $4600 U.S. It's not just another carbon fork either, it was specifically designed for this frame. It is also the lightest Columbus fork to date as well.


$4600 is some change. So pretty though, must resist the bright shiney object...
Even though I like a steel fork for a steel frame, that is one nice looking carbon fork. Good to hear they designed one just for the XCR. The lines and thinness of the carbon fork legs match the frame well.

BTW, if anyone is a large, GVH bike has only one large XCR at $3500. 

http://www.gvhbikes.com/


----------



## holy cromoly

A thread about this beauty deserves pictures...


----------



## holy cromoly

More pictures...


----------



## Kuma601

Drool...


----------



## Lionel

*Strong*

Carl Strong can build you a custom XCr bike for $2800. He did one for me.


----------



## stevesbike

nice if you're into hanging bikes on the wall - otherwise an overpriced brick...


----------



## Le Wrench

stevesbike said:


> nice if you're into hanging bikes on the wall - otherwise an overpriced brick...


That can be said for just about any expensive bike for that matter.

Like many things in the bike biz, it's all just perceived value and whether or not it's worthy is all based on the buyer.


----------



## shabbasuraj

Mine shipped yeesterday


----------



## a_avery007

can Strong do bb30?
thnx


----------



## Lionel

You should ask him. If this is a BB shell provided by Colombus I do not see why not.


----------



## Bertrand

Very purty. If I was wealthy I would buy.


----------



## holy cromoly

One more photo


----------



## nocwrench

stevesbike said:


> nice if you're into hanging bikes on the wall - otherwise an overpriced brick...


Wow, you're the best. So....What bike are YOU riding? My XCr weighs less than 16 lbs for a steel frame, that will not corrode, has laser etched graphics,(no peeling or cracking decals) and will last way longer than whatever "disposable bike you have". How many bikes will you own over the next 20 years that I have my bike? Now what is overpriced?


----------



## Dajianshan

Hmmm... not doing it for me. IMO. I was hoping to be impressed. Dang!

It kinda looks like some kitchenware we used to have. Maybe it is better in person.


----------



## Lazyrider

Don't get me wrong, it is a nice frame, but the ONLY reason why this frame is $4600 MSRP is because it in NOT CARBON. It is grossly overpriced as it is steel which is the cheapest of material (regardless if it is stainless steel).

It is a novelty in the age of carbon and that novelty is reflected in the price. It is ridiculous. I just sold this polished Litespeed Classic with 9 Speed Dura Ace for about $1k complete. Titanium is lighter and more expensive or at least it should be. To whoever buys this, resale in a couple of years will be horrible.


----------



## nocwrench

What is ridiculous is your reply. If you actually read the article in the OP, you will see that the "Columbus XCr tubeset is THE most expensive in the world", and just won an award for materials production.

You should consider doing at least a little research before you post, as the entire post is riddled with inaccuracies. Like your claim that the Litespeed frameset is lighter, not the case.


----------



## gearguywb

I would not call steel "the cheapest of materials". I would think carbon fiber is. Once you have a mold the actual "material" is WAY cheap.


----------



## Nessism

nocwrench said:


> What is ridiculous is your reply. If you actually read the article in the OP, you will see that the "Columbus XCr tubeset is THE most expensive in the world", and just won an award for materials production.
> 
> You should consider doing at least a little research before you post, as the entire post is riddled with inaccuracies. Like your claim that the Litespeed frameset is lighter, not the case.



Lazyrider does it again. He has made a career as a buzz kill specialist by spouting BS with his off topic slams. One minor point can be taken from his post though; todays "new technology" will become yesterdays news in a few years. One other thing, the framebuilding community has taken notice that Columbus XCr and Reynolds 953 are priced like Ti, so many builders are not bothering. I've read that welding Ti is actually easier, although I have no personal experience.

At the end of the day it's another bike frame. New materials are intriguing, and nothing wrong with stainless steel. I like it, but my personal value stream would keep me from buying any frame that costs that much.


----------



## Lazyrider

LOL,
Well, my Litespeed Classic in that picture is from 1996 and the weight of a 53cm (mine is 57cm) is 1490 grams which is only 60 grams heavier than this Cinelli made in 2009. So, as far as weight savings and 13 years later, I'd say that figure is pretty negligible. 

Plus I was referring to titanium being lighter in general as my Classic was one of their heavier frames. I owned a Vortex which was lighter and was the "Most expensive frame in the world at the time" and currently a Solano which is same weight as that Cinelli in a 53cm and costs a fraction of price. Most of the current Litespeeds are lighter than this frame.

Like I said, it is a nice frame, but the fact that it is not carbon makes it a novelty whether you can accept that or not. Stainless steel as a material is not anything unique and like any trend, carbon is the Zeitgeist in frame material right now and any other newer material will be seen as unique and will cost a lot more. You can get a custom Seven or Serotta steel frame for a fraction of the price if you want to be on steel which makes a great bike, but the stainless part of this Cinelli makes it a ripoff. 

BTW, here is the last sentence of that article you link to

One thing is for sure, Cinelli’s XCr offers an interesting alternative to the current carbon trend that’s just as expensive, but guaranteed to be a unique addition to your local group ride




nocwrench said:


> What is ridiculous is your reply. If you actually read the article in the OP, you will see that the "Columbus XCr tubeset is THE most expensive in the world", and just won an award for materials production.
> 
> You should consider doing at least a little research before you post, as the entire post is riddled with inaccuracies. Like your claim that the Litespeed frameset is lighter, not the case.


----------



## a_avery007

*geez*

remember design and geometry first, materials second.

So, you are going to compare a litespeed to the Cinelli..is that a joke of some sorts?

first i have owned Ti, 3X each time hoping for more lateral stiffness and zip, each time left dissapointed.
owned a Kona Ti, made by Sanvik and a custom made double butted Dean.
both were smooth, the kona heavy for what it was, and the Dean lighter, but a noodle torsionally-this was my single speed.

road bike was a Litespeed Tuscany, a good bike but to me lacked zip, most likely down to size of stays, and geometry. (but for the price, not even in the league of a Rock Lobster or Strong or Steelman)

FYI my custom made 56cm Steelman was 3.3lbs with paint, so the weight ain't all that hot..


i will take the a Custom Stainless Strong over a Ti bike anyday, escpecially a Litespeed!!lol

that Cinelli is a work of art, literally and figuratively, and most probably a smokin' ride!!!


----------



## Lazyrider

Seriously, how long have you been riding and following bike trends? I have been riding over 25 years and through these years, there is an obvious shuffling of frame materials at the "high end". Steel was the original, then aluminum became the choice material, titanium, now carbon. 

At any one time, the material of choice was the most expensive including aluminum which is the cheapest yet there were some $3k + frames out there 10 years ago. That was the trend and people paid for it. Now you can get these same frames for dirt cheap because nobody wants them. 

This Cinelli is a nice frame as I said, but $4600 for a steel frame is ridiculous and mainly a novelty. I will guarantee you that it will not replace carbon in the Peleton. LOL, it is reserved for those seeking a unique ride and are willing to pay a premium for it and I think that is fine, but it is purely for the aesthetic.

I am not putting down the frame, but I am just pointing out how the trend works and if Cinelli offers something unique and markets it this way, a few people may be swayed into buying into their marketing. There is no weight or performance advantage to this Cinelli frame and I would buy a custom frame from Strong, Steelman, Seven or Serotta before I'd pay for this Cinelli. 

Actually Cinelli was a better frame brand many many years ago but has more recently been relegated to a cheaper manufacturer. They were late to the carbon boom and made some mid range aluminum frames recently which I almost bought a few years back. They have a history, but the company hasn't been producing anything spectacular for many years and is making a push to resurrect their name. More power to them and as you can see, they are now concentrating on carbon and steel frames only. 

As far a comparing Cinelli to Litespeed, well I remember a time when Litespeed was the "coveted" frame in the late 90s and Cinelli fell off the face of the earth. If you look at the industry at any one point in time, you will make assumptions, but I have been around for a while and can tell you that bike frames are like the fashion world. Trends come and go. 



a_avery007 said:


> remember design and geometry first, materials second.
> 
> So, you are going to compare a litespeed to the Cinelli..is that a joke of some sorts?
> 
> first i have owned Ti, 3X each time hoping for more lateral stiffness and zip, each time left dissapointed.
> owned a Kona Ti, made by Sanvik and a custom made double butted Dean.
> both were smooth, the kona heavy for what it was, and the Dean lighter, but a noodle torsionally-this was my single speed.
> 
> road bike was a Litespeed Tuscany, a good bike but to me lacked zip, most likely down to size of stays, and geometry. (but for the price, not even in the league of a Rock Lobster or Strong or Steelman)
> 
> FYI my custom made 56cm Steelman was 3.3lbs with paint, so the weight ain't all that hot..
> 
> 
> i will take the a Custom Stainless Strong over a Ti bike anyday, escpecially a Litespeed!!lol
> 
> that Cinelli is a work of art, literally and figuratively, and most probably a smokin' ride!!!


----------



## Nessism

Lazyrider said:


> Seriously, how long have you been riding and following bike trends? I have been riding over 25 years and through these years, there is an obvious shuffling of frame materials at the "high end". Steel was the original, then aluminum became the choice material, titanium, now carbon.
> 
> At any one time, the material of choice was the most expensive including aluminum which is the cheapest yet there were some $3k + frames out there 10 years ago. That was the trend and people paid for it. Now you can get these same frames for dirt cheap because nobody wants them.
> 
> This Cinelli is a nice frame as I said, but $4600 for a steel frame is ridiculous and mainly a novelty. I will guarantee you that it will not replace carbon in the Peleton. LOL, it is reserved for those seeking a unique ride and are willing to pay a premium for it and I think that is fine, but it is purely for the aesthetic.
> 
> I am not putting down the frame, but I am just pointing out how the trend works and if Cinelli offers something unique and markets it this way, a few people may be swayed into buying into their marketing. There is no weight or performance advantage to this Cinelli frame and I would buy a custom frame from Strong, Steelman, Seven or Serotta before I'd pay for this Cinelli.
> 
> Actually Cinelli was a better frame brand many many years ago but has more recently been relegated to a cheaper manufacturer. They were late to the carbon boom and made some mid range aluminum frames recently which I almost bought a few years back. They have a history, but the company hasn't been producing anything spectacular for many years and is making a push to resurrect their name. More power to them and as you can see, they are now concentrating on carbon and steel frames only.
> 
> As far a comparing Cinelli to Litespeed, well I remember a time when Litespeed was the "coveted" frame in the late 90s and Cinelli fell off the face of the earth. If you look at the industry at any one point in time, you will make assumptions, but I have been around for a while and can tell you that bike frames are like the fashion world. Trends come and go.



Yes, trends come and go...which is why many people are still buying steel. I agree that $4600 is way too much, for any frame, but if one chooses to overspend, dumping money in a revered brand like Cinelli, for a durable frame made of high strength stainless, you could do worse.


----------



## Lazyrider

Nessism said:


> Yes, trends come and go...which is why many people are still buying steel. I agree that $4600 is way too much, for any frame, but if one chooses to overspend, dumping money in a revered brand like Cinelli, for a durable frame made of high strength stainless, you could do worse.



Ness, I said it is a nice looking bike, but from a functional standpoint, there is no advantage. I would flex it like a paperclip. That plus the weight penalty, it is purely an aesthetic piece albeit a smooth ride. 

I had a steel Scapin which was very classic and a Dedacci steel Fondriest which were nice bikes, but heavy and not very stiff. $5100 for this Cinelli in custom geometry???? 
Carl Strong sells a frame with the same tubeset for $2800. Better yet, just get the non-stainless model with same ride quality and save a bundle. Laser etching costs them pennies. LOL

You know bike Ness, Cinelli almost fell off the face of the earth. They are not the same company as they were 30+ years ago as far as innovation. They are making a push now to ressurect their name and are putting out some nice carbon frames, but nothing innovative, just trying to keep up with the Joneses.


----------



## longcat

If its shiny and not because its painted I like it, but for 4.6 grand its kinda expensive, you can get a whole bike for that money, a really good bike.


----------



## Nessism

Lazyrider said:


> Ness, I said it is a nice looking bike, but from a functional standpoint, there is no advantage. I would flex it like a paperclip. That plus the weight penalty, it is purely an aesthetic piece albeit a smooth ride.
> 
> I had a steel Scapin which was very classic and a Dedacci steel Fondriest which were nice bikes, but heavy and not very stiff. $5100 for this Cinelli in custom geometry????
> Carl Strong sells a frame with the same tubeset for $2800. Better yet, just get the non-stainless model with same ride quality and save a bundle. Laser etching costs them pennies. LOL
> 
> You know bike Ness, Cinelli almost fell off the face of the earth. They are not the same company as they were 30+ years ago as far as innovation. They are making a push now to ressurect their name and are putting out some nice carbon frames, but nothing innovative, just trying to keep up with the Joneses.



How do you know you can "flex it like a paperclip"? The XCr tubeset use a 38mm down tube and 33mm seat tube - these tubes are way bigger than "classic" steel frames of old, so the frame will be significantly stiffer. A XCr frame will be significantly stiffer than that old Classic of yours, and stiffer than a Vortex I suspect.

Regarding weight, no one other than a single purpose racer or a weight weenie worries about 1/2 pound on the most important component on a bicycle. The Cinelli's biggest drawback in my mind is the cost. Technically it's a very nice frame.


----------



## Lazyrider

Nessism said:


> How do you know you can "flex it like a paperclip"? The XCr tubeset use a 38mm down tube and 33mm seat tube - these tubes are way bigger than "classic" steel frames of old, so the frame will be significantly stiffer. A XCr frame will be significantly stiffer than that old Classic of yours, and stiffer than a Vortex I suspect.
> 
> Regarding weight, no one other than a single purpose racer or a weight weenie worries about 1/2 pound on the most important component on a bicycle. The Cinelli's biggest drawback in my mind is the cost. Technically it's a very nice frame.


Yeah,
My Classic was not stiff but it was comfortable and I suspect the XCR is too. I am not knocking the bike. I like it, but I am factoring the price into the equation from a performance standpoint. Weight and stiffness included, I don't see any advantage to this frame other than the aesthetic. 

$5100 for a custom version is ridiculous and the whole "lifetime" aspect of durability, anyone of us who spends that much on a bike is going to buy another bike in the future.


----------



## a_avery007

*well since*



Lazyrider said:


> Seriously, how long have you been riding and following bike trends?
> 
> i commuted on a raleigh 3 speed (internal hub) that was made in England 70's
> 
> rode cinelli's (donwtube shifting) when they were made in Italy 70's
> 
> rode the first Schwinn 5 (shimano thumbmies) speed mountain bike 80's
> 
> the first mountain suspension fork mag 21 90's
> 
> just for some perspective
> 
> and many many other bikes and makers.
> so that puts me over 30 years mate, so, no, i dont have any experience.lol
> 
> steel is getting stronger and lighter all the time. it has not stagnated in the least.
> 
> yes the Cinelli is too expensive, but someone has to pay the R&D costs.
> 
> get the Strong for $2800 and that frame will be as good as any out there.
> 
> ride what you like just ride


----------



## Lazyrider

a_avery007 said:


> Lazyrider said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, how long have you been riding and following bike trends?
> 
> i commuted on a raleigh 3 speed (internal hub) that was made in England 70's
> 
> rode cinelli's (donwtube shifting) when they were made in Italy 70's
> 
> rode the first Schwinn 5 (shimano thumbmies) speed mountain bike 80's
> 
> the first mountain suspension fork mag 21 90's
> 
> just for some perspective
> 
> and many many other bikes and makers.
> so that puts me over 30 years mate, so, no, i dont have any experience.lol
> 
> steel is getting stronger and lighter all the time. it has not stagnated in the least.
> 
> yes the Cinelli is too expensive, but someone has to pay the R&D costs.
> 
> get the Strong for $2800 and that frame will be as good as any out there.
> 
> ride what you like just ride
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah,
> I like steel and how they ride but the issue here is the cost of this Xcr in particular. Cinelli is not the same company of old and you know this. They are slapping their name on newer carbon frames just like all the others. This Xcr is more of an attention getter to the brand as they had fallen off the face of the earth for a while.
> 
> I am not knocking steel but there are a lot of other alternatives that may ride better for a hell of a lot less $$$. It is purely an aesthetic, that is my point. No performance advantage over carbon.
Click to expand...


----------



## a_avery007

*yes you*

are correct sir, cinelli is a shell of their former self in that regard. good solid bikes outsourced to god knows where like everyone else's frames and parts. that is not neccesarily a bad thing.

but steel is still way competitive! you can build it light enough, with carbon fork, stiff enough in anything smaller than a 58cm frame and durable enough. last and most important for me is you can get it custom built, to your riding style and the ride quality will be off the charts..so $2800 for a custom frame is not all that bad considering some pina's and nago's are running in the $5-6k range..


----------



## Le Wrench

Cinelli is now part of Gruppo SpA, who also owns Columbus, hence all the Columbus tubes on all all Cinellis. They were acquired by Gruppo sometime back in he 90's.


----------



## Lance#8in09

a_avery007 said:


> are correct sir, cinelli is a shell of their former self in that regard. good solid bikes outsourced to god knows where like everyone else's frames and parts. that is not neccesarily a bad thing.
> 
> but steel is still way competitive! you can build it light enough, with carbon fork, stiff enough in anything smaller than a 58cm frame and durable enough. last and most important for me is you can get it custom built, to your riding style and the ride quality will be off the charts..so $2800 for a custom frame is not all that bad considering some pina's and nago's are running in the $5-6k range..



First off, the notion that it lacks the ability to build something stiff in anything over a 58cm frame???? Where did that come from???? Have you built say a size 60 with it????? Ridden one???? If not, how do you make that assessment???

As far as the ride quality being off the charts, most bikes, almost all bikes are built to ride within a very very narrow range regarding stiffness, etc so the notion about "ride quality" becomming nirvana with custom frames is mostly hoopla, hype and overactive imaginations from everyday recreational riders. Even extremely experienced pro's, paid riders, will tell you the diffrences in ride quality from frame to frame to frame are very very small. So the notion that because you call a guy up and have him build you a custom frame your bike suddenly "rides off the charts" is mostly marketing nonsense and little more. Put a Lemond decal on that "super custom frame", and let 10 of the custom worshipper "gurus" in here ride the bike believing they are riding a stock Lemond and I'll assure you virtually all of them if not 100% will come back and tell you how harsh it rode, how it didn't track well, how they could have taken turns on that descent sooo much faster had they only been on a custom built frame, etc etc etc...... Too funny in here.


----------



## Lazyrider

Lance#8in09 said:


> First off, the notion that it lacks the ability to build something stiff in anything over a 58cm frame???? Where did that come from???? Have you built say a size 60 with it????? Ridden one???? If not, how do you make that assessment???
> 
> As far as the ride quality being off the charts, most bikes, almost all bikes are built to ride within a very very narrow range regarding stiffness, etc so the notion about "ride quality" becomming nirvana with custom frames is mostly hoopla, hype and overactive imaginations from everyday recreational riders. Even extremely experienced pro's, paid riders, will tell you the diffrences in ride quality from frame to frame to frame are very very small. So the notion that because you call a guy up and have him build you a custom frame your bike suddenly "rides off the charts" is mostly marketing nonsense and little more. Put a Lemond decal on that "super custom frame", and let 10 of the custom worshipper "gurus" in here ride the bike believing they are riding a stock Lemond and I'll assure you virtually all of them if not 100% will come back and tell you how harsh it rode, how it didn't track well, how they could have taken turns on that descent sooo much faster had they only been on a custom built frame, etc etc etc...... Too funny in here.


Well,
I have been riding long enough to know the difference between ride quality across the materials. Steel is super smooth and plush much like titanium which is a little more springy. Carbon is aluminum are by far much stiffer in the race bred frames than ANY steel frame out there. That coupled with weight makes it the choice of ALL PRO TEAMS. Nobody is riding steel frames for obvious reasons. 

Like I said, steel frame are super smooth and for most of our needs, it is probably the best choice material. However, a 1440 gram steel frame for $4600 ever a 900 gram carbon fiber frame for $2k, that is a tough sell for most people. Mark my words, this Xcr frame will come and go as Cinelli is looking to push their new carbon line. I would go with a custom Seven steel or Serotta for 1/2 the price. $5100 for a custom Xcr is simply a joke.


----------



## a_avery007

*ok i will be kind here*

most frames over 59-62 cm's are ridden by bigger guys, who often complain of noodly frames, except for the Cannondale Caad frames.

a close friend of mine is 6'4" and 210lbs and pushes watts you and i can only dream of, and when he tells me most steel frames are torsionally less stiff in the head tube region i tend to believe him.

if you can't tell the difference between frame materials than that is you mate, not me.

i ride all my frames with same wheelsets, tires and pressure, saddles and bars; yes they evolve over time, no duh... many carbon frames and steel frames can have a distinctive ride quality about them, some have more road feel, ie buzzy, some less road feel, ie smooth and dissonant, others fall somewhere in between, i shall not waste everyones time here going into that. just pointing out that i can tell the difference easily.

could careless what the pros say (they are paid to ride and say things like it rides great)
i trust builders knowledge and expertise to build the best the tube manufactureres can come up with..

so, no second hand information, rumors and marketing just mileage brother....

ride what you like just ride


----------



## caterham

Le Wrench said:


> They were acquired by Gruppo sometime back in he 90's.





a_avery007 said:


> ... good solid bikes outsourced to god knows where like everyone else's frames and parts. .


antonio columbo acquired cinelli in 1978.the company was officially merged with columbus and 3TTT to form gruppo,spa in 1997.
all cinelli stee,& aluminum framesets are designed & built in milan,italy by their longtime 'house' framebuilder, giovanni losa



Lazythinker said:


> Actually Cinelli was a better frame brand many many years ago but has more recently been relegated to a cheaper manufacturer. .... They have a history, but the company hasn't been producing anything spectacular for many years and is making a push to resurrect their name. ... as you can see, they are now concentrating on carbon and steel frames only.


cinelli's lack of market presence in no.america has been largely due to spotty distribution by importers that either didn't know what they had (J&B)or didn't care(Sinclair). Cinelli,usa looks to be far more committed than their predecessors to promoting the brand within the american market.


----------



## Lazyrider

caterham said:


> antonio columbo acquired cinelli in 1978.the company was officially merged with columbus and 3TTT to form gruppo,spa in 1997.
> all cinelli stee,& aluminum framesets are designed & built in milan,italy by their longtime 'house' framebuilder, giovanni losa
> 
> 
> 
> cinelli's lack of market presence in no.america has been largely due to spotty distribution by importers that either didn't know what they had (J&B)or didn't care(Sinclair). Cinelli,usa looks to be far more committed than their predecessors to promoting the brand within the american market.



As I said, Cinelli kind of fell off the face of the earth for a while and the only frames they were putting out a few years back were some cheaper aluminum frames. I almost picked one up from GVH about 5 or 6 years ago for $5-600. They obviously have a new business model and are resurrecting the name and putting out some nice carbon frames. There are other examples of previously high end brands that lost their focus that are not putting out some expensive carbon. The Xcr is an attention getter for the brand, but they aren't gonna make a living off of it.


----------



## Guest

Lazyrider said:


> As I said, Cinelli kind of fell off the face of the earth for a while and the only frames they were putting out a few years back were some cheaper aluminum frames. I almost picked one up from GVH about 5 or 6 years ago for $5-600. They obviously have a new business model and are resurrecting the name and putting out some nice carbon frames. There are other examples of previously high end brands that lost their focus that are not putting out some expensive carbon. The Xcr is an attention getter for the brand, but they aren't gonna make a living off of it.


I hesitate to even ask this given that you clearly , at least according to you, know everything there is to know about .........well, everything.

Who on earth ever suggested that they are proposing to make "a living off it", it is a flagship product.

A show product.

But of course, I must be wrong since I don't agree with you. ............


----------



## holy cromoly

toomanybikes said:


> it is a flagship product.
> A show product.


I agree. Cinelli is making this frame as a highend item to promote their brand and continue their legacy.

No different than say camera maker Leica who releases limited themed camera bodies that are significantly more expensive than the regular Leica models, yet offer no gain in camera performance. What it does offer is rarity and exclusivity. At the end of the day, these limited cameras aren't paying the rent, but go a long way to continuing the brands aspiration factor.


----------



## caterham

Lazyrider said:


> As I said, Cinelli kind of fell off the face of the earth for a while and the only frames they were putting out a few years back were some cheaper aluminum frames.


really?
here's my "cheap" 02 scandium aluminum cinelli-an aliante muscle positioned dead square in the middle of the lineup and pretty much cutting edge construction for aluminum bikes at the time 









this one's from 01,a cinelli nuovo supercorsa- an 1450 g ultrafoco steel frame that imo, holds up pretty well even today-note the radical tube shaping and quality of fillet brazing. probably the best climbing & sprinting bike i've yet experienced,a number of highly touted and considerably more expensive current carbonfibre models included.


















here's a detail of the workmanship on one of the lower midline aluminum frames from 2004-imo,not too bad considering








another pic of the same frameset built up- a pretty ordinary race bike nowadays but stilll an eyecatcher and excellent rider today-not bad considering it was already a well established long running bread-n-butter model for cinelli when it was produced five years ago.








seeing as i've had a little bit of direct experienece with contemporary cinelli products and that you appear to be winging it, the merit of your opinions regarding the value and desireablity of the xcr and cinelli in general appear pretty questionable.

best,
k.


----------



## Guest

caterham said:


> seeing as i've had a little bit of direct experienece with contemporary cinelli products and that you appear to be winging it, the merit of your opinions regarding the value and desireablity appear pretty questionable.
> 
> best,
> k.


Gawd I love that blue one. I have searched for that frame in my size.

No luck so far.

Our friend is winging it in may ways, including his very broad brush views of steel and AL frames in comparison to the Holy Grail of CF.

Just another one is my view.

I really like that blue frame. I think the chainstays on that bike are the same as what I hae on 3 steel frames built by Mr. Strong - he really likes those.


----------



## zmudshark

There are two people I would never argue with regarding bikes, caterham and toomany.

They are both extremely knowledgeable, and really nice folk, even though toomany is an alien and talks funny.

PS-If anyone would like to have me test an XCr for a year or three, I wouldn't be ashamed to ride it.


----------



## zmudshark

GVH has ONE XCr in a 56 virtual for $3500. Tom is gone until the end of June.

http://www.gvhbikes.com/


----------



## Lazyrider

toomanybikes said:


> I hesitate to even ask this given that you clearly , at least according to you, know everything there is to know about .........well, everything.
> 
> Who on earth ever suggested that they are proposing to make "a living off it", it is a flagship product.
> 
> A show product.
> 
> But of course, I must be wrong since I don't agree with you. ............



Yeah,
seems like you simply reiterated my sentiments that the Xcr is an "attention getter" for the company. Cinelli's website for 09 is unlike any website they have had recently. They jumped on carbon bandwagon a little late and are trying to make up for lost time. Nice frames, I keep saying that, but you seem to see it as a criticism. 

No, I don't agree with you if you think the Xcr is worth it. The premium price is based on the novelty of the material. I really enjoyed the ride of my steel Scapin and Fondriest in past so I know how they ride. But I don't see paying $4600 for any steel frame.


----------



## Guest

Clearly you are one of the Carbon Fibre is everything crowd. Good for you. Too bad for you.

You think that paying $xx for a steel frame is a bad thing, if that frame is built by hand by an artisan that knows their craft.

Yet you seem to think that paying $xx for a carbon fibre frame produced by injecting resin into a fully paid for, fully amortized mold is acceptable.

I know where the greatest profit margin is for the builder and I know which I would rather own.

We dis-agree fundamentally on what is of value and I will never agree with your definition of value.

I also have NO desire to extend a pointless, and utterly worthless circuitous “argument” with you on the point, so I will just add you to my Ignore list right now.


----------



## paredown

I'm with TooMany--that blue frame is a beautiful thing. I hadn't seen close ups before...

(no new bikes, noooo newwww bikessss--came the subliminal voice--what, is that my wife's voice in my head?--I used to have free will and then what happened?????):cryin:


----------



## DannyBoy

*I can't see the photo's???*



caterham said:


> really?
> here's my "cheap" 02 scandium aluminum cinelli-an aliante muscle positioned dead square in the middle of the lineup and pretty much cutting edge construction for aluminum bikes at the time
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> this one's from 01,a cinelli nuovo supercorsa- an 1450 g ultrafoco steel frame that imo, holds up pretty well even today-note the radical tube shaping and quality of fillet brazing. probably the best climbing & sprinting bike i've yet experienced,a number of highly touted and considerably more expensive current carbonfibre models included.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> here's a detail of the workmanship on one of the lower midline aluminum frames from 2004-imo,not too bad considering
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> another pic of the same frameset built up- a pretty ordinary race bike nowadays but stilll an eyecatcher and excellent rider today-not bad considering it was already a well established long running bread-n-butter model for cinelli when it was produced five years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> seeing as i've had a little bit of direct experienece with contemporary cinelli products and that you appear to be winging it, the merit of your opinions regarding the value and desireablity of the xcr and cinelli in general appear pretty questionable.
> 
> best,
> k.


And I really want to see that blue bike dammit!!


----------



## Lazyrider

toomanybikes said:


> Clearly you are one of the Carbon Fibre is everything crowd. Good for you. Too bad for you.
> 
> You think that paying $xx for a steel frame is a bad thing, if that frame is built by hand by an artisan that knows their craft.
> 
> Yet you seem to think that paying $xx for a carbon fibre frame produced by injecting resin into a fully paid for, fully amortized mold is acceptable.
> 
> I know where the greatest profit margin is for the builder and I know which I would rather own.
> 
> We dis-agree fundamentally on what is of value and I will never agree with your definition of value.
> 
> I also have NO desire to extend a pointless, and utterly worthless circuitous “argument” with you on the point, so I will just add you to my Ignore list right now.



LOL,
We disagree, so what. I agree that carbon is also overpriced but based on weight and performance, it blows steel away. Hence no steel frames in the pro peleton for the past 15 years or so. I agree the process of making a steel bike is more impressive, but $4600 for that frame is NOT A GOOD VALUE.


----------



## DannyBoy

Not quite sure why so much value is put in 'weight' as mentioned a little way up. I have to admit a light bike has cafe cool (we all want one really), but we all really know a kg here or there makes bugger all difference on the road to most folk.

I've got 16lb carbon bikes (which I think are dull and soleless) and 18-22lb steel boat anchors (which I love) and you know what, they all ride much the same. Some are custom, some have 55.5cm top tubes, most 56cm and one 57cm - on the road I can't tell the diff, they're all good to ride.

I agree the Cinelli is pricey, but if you like you like and the extra grams won't make a diff to most. Not sure why there's no steel in the pro peleton but I very much doubt it's a weight thing.


----------



## caterham

Lazyrider said:


> I almost picked one up from GVH about 5 or 6 years ago for $5-600. They obviously have a new business model and are resurrecting the name and putting out some nice carbon frames. There are other examples of previously high end brands that lost their focus that are not putting out some expensive carbon. The Xcr is an attention getter for the brand, but they aren't gonna make a living off of it.


i think you misunderstand what the cinelli brand represents- cinelli IS columbus.

the division exists largely to showcase the full range of current columbus tubing products, their construction methods, and component accessories for sale *to the industry* and still pay it's own way,turning a profit via retail sales to the consumer if possible.
with each new columbus tubeset,columbus will incorporate that product into the cinelli brand bicycle lineup,often mixing and matching components to exhibit the products,their production versatility and potential assembly options that they(columbus) as a materials supplier can accomodate.
for example the red 2004 aliante shown,uses a full TIG welded columbus airplane main triangle(upper-midlevel),a tusk fork(midlevel),link seatstays(budget) and super muscle chainstays(high end) and the then-new columbus twin plug cast btm bkt shell & intergated headset. later models would incorporate various combinations of new carve, tusk monocoque,muscle & mega carve carbon-graphite components and fittings as well as the columbus single plug btm bkt shell.

one should also note that cinelli,while perfectly capable, over the years has historically avoided high profile advertising & bicycle frame sponsorship of uci pro tour teams to minimize conflict with their bicycle manufacturer clients. this unique-in-the-industry relationship as both industry supplier and retail bicycle & component manufacturer places cinelli in a sensitive and carefully measured business position- too small and the division cannot survive on its own, yet too large and it competes directly with its primary customer base with the potential loss of their core business.

as for the seemingly high pricing for xcr, the costs not only reflect the uniqueness & exclusivity of a highly developed small volume,seamless butted stainless steel tubing product but also the unfavorably volatile current international exchange rates (lira to euro to us dollar) and incorporating a whole additional distribution network(wholesale PLUS retail) that a small,independant,direct sales domestic custom fabricator simply does not have to accomodate.

btw- gvh sells overstock,discontinued,NOS and B stock inventory,many sourced outside of authorised distribution &lacking official warranties so the prices quoted do not reflect traditional mark-ups,support and pricing. imo, they are a reputable company and can offer great value esp when initial cost is a primary concern.


----------



## Guest

DannyBoy said:


> .....
> 
> 
> Not sure why there's no steel in the pro peleton but I very much doubt it's a weight thing.


Please don't open that one up.

Safe to say that the bikes in the pro ranks are the ones that offer the greatest profit margin to the Mfr.


----------



## DannyBoy

toomanybikes said:


> Please don't open that one up.
> 
> Safe to say that the bikes in the pro ranks are the ones that offer the greatest profit margin to the Mfr.


Ooops. No doubt the weight comments'll get things cranking, mebe I should post it on weight weeneis forum to really get things going this arvo, teehee.

Hey, can you see the pix above? On some posts I don't get to see 'em??? Could you kindly repost so I can enjoy those fine steel rides, or crap steel rides if you're into carbon .


----------



## Guest

DannyBoy said:


> Ooops. No doubt the weight comments'll get things cranking, mebe I should post it on weight weeneis forum to really get things going this arvo, teehee.
> 
> Hey, can you see the pix above? On some posts I don't get to see 'em??? Could you kindly repost so I can enjoy those fine steel rides, or crap steel rides if you're into carbon .


which pix???


----------



## ClassicSteel71

I love that frame set. For the price I might have to get a custom Responsorium. Either way i'd be happy with the purchase. In better economic times I would have snatched one up already.


----------



## Lazyrider

toomanybikes said:


> Please don't open that one up.
> 
> Safe to say that the bikes in the pro ranks are the ones that offer the greatest profit margin to the Mfr.


No,
There is a 400-500 gram difference is weight and an increase in stiffness with a carbon frame. That was why aluminum was the material of choice that replaced steel and now carbon in the peleton. Lighter and stiffer. Case closed. 

There is nothing to "open" as there is no conspiracy. Steel is heavier and less stiff. It will never be the choice of the Peleton again. Steel still makes for a great ride, but one reserved for the more recreational or touring cyclist.


----------



## Guest

Hahahahahahahaaha


Oh, sorry. 

Were you being serious?



Lazyrider said:


> No,
> There is a 400-500 gram difference is weight and an increase in stiffness with a carbon frame. That was why aluminum was the material of choice that replaced steel and now carbon in the peleton. Lighter and stiffer. Case closed.
> 
> There is nothing to "open" as there is no conspiracy. Steel is heavier and less stiff. It will never be the choice of the Peleton again. Steel still makes for a great ride, but one reserved for the more recreational or touring cyclist.


----------



## longcat

But steel dont snap like a twig from falling over.


----------



## Nessism

Lazyrider said:


> No,
> There is a 400-500 gram difference is weight and an increase in stiffness with a carbon frame. That was why aluminum was the material of choice that replaced steel and now carbon in the peleton. Lighter and stiffer. Case closed.
> 
> There is nothing to "open" as there is no conspiracy. Steel is heavier and less stiff. It will never be the choice of the Peleton again. Steel still makes for a great ride, but one reserved for the more recreational or touring cyclist.



A steel frame can be made plenty stiff, but you are right that it will be heavier than an equivalent weight carbon or aluminum frame. Only a fool will judge a frame based on weight though.


----------



## caterham

as for pro tour racing, the uci's minimum weight limit can be easily attained with a pretty ordinary aluminum frameset and off the shelf components. a modern lightweight steel frameset can come very close but would require a bit of weight-weenie-ism beyond what might be considered prudent for stage racing reliability.


----------



## Lazyrider

Nessism said:


> A steel frame can be made plenty stiff, but you are right that it will be heavier than an equivalent weight carbon or aluminum frame. Only a fool will judge a frame based on weight though.


Basically we are agreeing but people are getting defensive about frame material which is a little silly. Steel makes for a sublime ride, but is not the stiffest or the lightest material for a race bike today. Yes, it can be made stiff, yes it can be somewhat light, but there is a give and take with either. This is stating the obvious. 

Plus, the Xcr is grossly overpriced and a novelty frame. From a performance standpoint, there is not advantage in weight or stiffness for the premium paid for that frame. I would go for a custom Seven or Strong steel frame then.


----------



## SystemShock

I like Sheldon Brown's take on Cinellis:

*Cinelli*

_Among the most sought-after of all vintage lightweights. A few heretics claim they are overrated. I say take a closer look and get a clue - or buy a Cannondale. Many Cinelli frames show exquisite mitering, smooth and even brazing, and lots of lug thinning. This is even true for many examples from the early 50's! Sure they have deep ugly file marks too - but that is only the surface! Add to the equation that many ride pretty close to perfection - at least as some would define it. Cinelli frames are also a visual feast with Italian style that just won't quit. In Japan, appreciation for Cinelli products is near cult-like.

Over the past several years domestic prices have soared for prime examples. A Cinelli is an icon of cycling tradition. Sure, a few Cinelli frames have some lapses here and there - but don't miss the point. Cinelli frames defined the paradigm of a quality racing bike for decades.

Late 40's to mid 50's models with Cinelli crest decal on forkblades are very rare! Road models under 58cm are perhaps worth about $4000. Track bikes, lower end tourers, or large bikes are worth perhaps $2,500. Mid 50's to late 60's top road models under 58cm should be worth $2,500.

Models with rare parts, such as early Record cranks with the raised lip around the pedal threads should be worth perhaps $3,500. Size will matter.

N.R. equipped bikes from 1968-1997 are prone to wide value fluctuations. For a brief period, such bikes in smaller sizes were very valuable in Japan. Prices have since fallen quite a bit due to Dollar/Yen changes and general economic conditions. Domestic prices now similar to those currently being paid by Japanese buyers. Figure bikes in guideline condition sized from 53cm to 59cm are worth about $2,400. Larger bikes seem to be worth somewhat less, while very large bikes (above 62cm) are probably worth only about $1,200. Smaller sizes in silver may be worth a bit more to buyers in Japan. It seems that Japanese buyers love Cinelli bikes in Silver!

Cinelli track bikes are worth about $1,500. Chrome models are worth perhaps a bit more as is always the case.

Model B Cinelli bikes are very nice but generally not worth more than $1,200. 

Around 1978 Cinelli was sold to the Columbo family. There are bikes with either the new or old logo's from this period. Until about 1980, while the graphics could go either way, the brake bridges and bottom bracket shells had new Cinelli logs making these bikes recognizable. Headbadge examples are worth more, perhaps $1,600, although modern logo bikes from the same period are just as good. From around 1980 until perhaps 1981 or 1982, Cinelli bikes with the new logo using a 26.2 seatpost and the lugs with 3 holes in each were very nice. Many do not consider these to be "real" Cinelli bikes, but they are at least as good as many of the earlier ones. Apparently either some very good builders from the previous period continued on, or work was contracted to outside builders of considerable talent. These bikes from this period deserve to be classics in their own right. Their geometry is upright, yet the ride is comfortable. These are bikes designed for the fast short distance riding so common in the United States. They, nonetheless, will handle mountain descents with ease as well! These bikes are worth perhaps $1,500 and are worth every penny and then some.

Sometime around 1983 it all ended. The 26.2 sleeved seat lug was replaced wit a different cast model that used a 27.2 post. The familiar 3 hole lugs were gone as well. Quality during the following years took a pretty heavy hit as well. Many examples didn't even have chrome lugs. These examples in S.R. are worth about $800. By the late 80's quality improved and chrome lugs returned. It just, however, isn't the same._

*http://www.sheldonbrown.com/vrbn-a-f.html#cinelli
*.


----------



## zmudshark

Sheldon is dead, and he didn't own a Cinelli.

I have a mid 80's model (84), and though it's Post Cino, apres Columbo, I wouldn't sell it at any price.

Just ride.


----------



## SystemShock

zmudshark said:


> Sheldon is dead, and he didn't own a Cinelli.


Really odd/cold thing to say. Pretty sure Sheldon knew his bikes.
.


----------



## Lazyrider

zmudshark said:


> Sheldon is dead, and he didn't own a Cinelli.
> 
> I have a mid 80's model (84), and though it's Post Cino, apres Columbo, I wouldn't sell it at any price.
> 
> Just ride.



Like I said, Cinelli is trying to resurrect their name not unlike a lot of old reputable brands tend to do. Bianchi also lost focus recently too among others.


----------



## caterham

Lazyrider said:


> Like I said, Cinelli is trying to resurrect their name not unlike a lot of old reputable brands tend to do. Bianchi also lost focus recently too among others.


you really are a dense fellow,aren't you?


----------



## caterham

SystemShock said:


> I like Sheldon Brown's take on Cinellis:


excuse me but what in the world does posting sheldon's outdated valuation mumblings on corsa/supercorsa's have to do with this thread originally centered on the new stainless steel xcr frameset? i guess that you had nothing to really say or add to the topic but just had to post something,right?

sheldon's world was vintage bikes and his world view had it that the whole universe turned dark and decayed in the mid-80's,when the french bicycle industry collapsed on itself from self-important complacency.
that timeframe is over a quarter century old and gone and his cinelli piece is almost exclusively about the production run of what is essentially a single model,albeit a classic.

paraphrased, his final paragraph boils down to 'post-cino cinelli built crap bikes in the 80's because they stopped drilling holes in their lugwork, and fergawdsakes even went so far as to stop chroming them for a time. they went and chromed them again later but "it's just not the same". and besides....how dare cinelli switch to a 27.2 standardized seatpost size?!!!! the horror,the horror!'
wtf ?


----------



## Guest

SystemShock said:


> Really odd/cold thing to say. Pretty sure Sheldon knew his bikes.
> .


Hmm,

shoulda' read further - Caterham basically beat me to it.


----------



## ClassicSteel71

caterham said:


> you really are a dense fellow,aren't you?


He's even more popular over on Bikeforums.net.


----------



## Guest

ClassicSteel71 said:


> He's even more popular over on Bikeforums.net.



Ahh,

That explains an awful lot.

It really does.


----------



## SystemShock

caterham said:


> excuse me but what in the world does posting sheldon's outdated valuation mumblings on corsa/supercorsa's have to do with this thread originally centered on the new stainless steel xcr frameset? i guess that you had nothing to really say or add to the topic but just had to post something,right?


Wow... someone sure pissed in someone's Cheerios. Calm down, sparky.

The central bone of contention in this thread has been "$4600 for a Cinelli, outrageous or not?", and also, "that _can't_ be a valid buying decision, can it?". Sheldon's perspective on Cinellis as absolute classics with a long history that are worth a lot of money can be valuable here, as it illuminates why some ppl have been willing to pay top dollar for the Cinelli name and workmanship, and what that name means.

But I guess that feeling like I can just shoot the breeze here on an _Internet forum_ was too much to ask, and I should be much more careful to post only those things that are deemed 'directly relevant' by the resident forum Nazi. Achtung, herr Director!, an' all that. :lol:  



> sheldon's world was vintage bikes and his world view had it that the whole universe turned dark and decayed in the mid-80's,when the french bicycle industry collapsed on itself from self-important complacency.
> that timeframe is over a quarter century old and gone and his cinelli piece is almost exclusively about the production run of what is essentially a single model,albeit a classic.
> 
> paraphrased, his final paragraph boils down to 'post-cino cinelli built crap bikes in the 80's because they stopped drilling holes in their lugwork, and fergawdsakes even went so far as to stop chroming them for a time. they went and chromed them again later but "it's just not the same". and besides....how dare cinelli switch to a 27.2 standardized seatpost size?!!!! the horror,the horror!'
> wtf ?


You have your opinion and Sheldon had his, and obviously you have a problem with Sheldon's. What of it? Any real need for all the hand-waving? 

Btw, 'WTFing' over his critique of small details seems rather silly, considering that that's much of what makes classic frames valuable or not valuable in many folks' minds... those little details. Sheldon's hardly unique in that regard, and if you have a problem with that way of thinking, you have a problem with an awful lot of collectors and much of the custom bike market as well.

I do get where you're coming from, but there's no need to be that vehement about it. Sheldon contributed a lot to cycling, and if your intent was to ridicule him, it will be hard to take you seriously.
.


----------



## caterham

SystemShock said:


> The central bone of contention in this thread has been "$4600 for a Cinelli, outrageous or not?", and also, "that _can't_ be a valid buying decision, can it?". Sheldon's perspective on Cinellis as absolute classics with a long history that are worth a lot of money can be valuable here, as it illuminates why some ppl have been willing to pay top dollar for the Cinelli name and workmanship, and what that name means.


it would have been helpful had you prefaced sheldon's treatise with your last entry,or bettter yet, posted this reply on its own without the brown quote. as it stood, i couldn't begin to understand your intentions and upon reading sheldon's words again,was struck with his very odd but highly specific dismisal of the later, columbo era supercorsa production.my apologies for any misunderstanding.

regards,
k


----------



## SystemShock

caterham said:


> it would have been helpful had you prefaced sheldon's treatise with your last entry,or bettter yet, posted this reply on its own without the brown quote. as it stood, i couldn't begin to understand your intentions and upon reading sheldon's words again,was struck with his very odd but highly specific dismisal of the later, columbo era supercorsa production.my apologies for any misunderstanding.
> 
> regards,
> k


Sorry if I got snippy too. I guess I just didn't expect such a strong reaction.

In any case, the point was, if a $4600 stainless steel frame had a 'KHS' or 'Univega' decal on the side, no one would buy it. So there's a value-add in the Cinelli name, in terms of quality, reputation, history, story, catchet, etc, for those who see and highly value those things. Regardless of whether the carbon-fiber-crowd doesn't get it or doesn't care.

As Sheldon said in that snippet, "Sure, a few Cinelli frames have some lapses here and there - but don't miss the point. Cinelli frames defined the paradigm of a quality racing bike for decades."

I think that's well-put. And if you buy a CInelli, you're buying a piece of that (unless they someday sell the name to Wal-Mart or something  ).
.


----------



## Lazyrider

caterham said:


> you really are a dense fellow,aren't you?


You guys sound like parents that think their own kids are beautiful and talented when they are not. I said from my first post here that the Xcr is a nice frame but my opinion is that it is grossly overpriced which is not an uncommon sentiment regarding this particular frame.

Sheldon Brown's take on Cinelli happens to be pretty much what I stated about Cinelli's history and where the company is now. Yet you guys try to discredit what he says because you are looking at the quote like a proud parent. It doesn't mean they don't make a nice bike, but it is not uncommon for brands to ressurect a name based on past history. Cinelli is not different as they are jumping on the carbon bandwagon strongly this year. 

So you can call me dense but then I guess Sheldon Brown is too because you guys discredit his opinion. If you want to spend $5100 for a custom Xcr, more power to you, but there are a hell of a lot better values out there in custom steel and that is simply a fact.


----------



## ClassicSteel71

Lazyrider said:


> You guys sound like parents that think their own kids are beautiful and talented when they are not.


Leave your folks out of this.


----------



## ClassicSteel71

Lazyrider said:


> You guys sound like parents that think their own kids are beautiful and talented when they are not. I said from my first post here that the Xcr is a nice frame but my opinion is that it is grossly overpriced which is not an uncommon sentiment regarding this particular frame.
> 
> Sheldon Brown's take on Cinelli happens to be pretty much what I stated about Cinelli's history and where the company is now. Yet you guys try to discredit what he says because you are looking at the quote like a proud parent. It doesn't mean they don't make a nice bike, but it is not uncommon for brands to ressurect a name based on past history. Cinelli is not different as they are jumping on the carbon bandwagon strongly this year.
> 
> So you can call me dense but then I guess Sheldon Brown is too because you guys discredit his opinion. *If you want to spend $5100 for a custom Xcr, more power to you, but there are a hell of a lot better values out there in custom steel and that is simply a fact.*


This frame can be gotten for 3500-3700 (pay attention). You're right, 5k frames should only be made of plastic pushed into molds.


----------



## kiwisimon

Actually value or worth is purely subjective so it can't be a fact. How about you just leave your opinion at 


Lazyrider said:


> I said from my first post here that the Xcr is a nice frame but my opinion is that it is grossly overpriced


and forget the 


Lazyrider said:


> If you want to spend $5100 for a custom Xcr, more power to you, but there are a hell of a lot better values out there in custom steel and that is simply a fact.


 which sets you up to look like a punching bag.


----------



## Le Wrench

kiwisimon said:


> Actually value or worth is purely subjective so it can't be a fact. How about you just leave your opinion at


I agree with this too.

Bikes all have a certain level of perceived value that only the person buying the bike can determine if it's worth the cost. 

Cinelli as a lot of history and mystique that get's factor into the pricing of their products. For someone who subcribes to the Cinelli mystique, they will pay for this frame. 

Sometimes it just comes down if you drink the kool-aid. Some people like carbon juice, others steel flavored juice. Each can argue ad nauseum, as demostrated in this thread. At the end of the day, life is just one big drink dispenser. Pick your flavor and ride it and pay as much for it as you want.

Speaking of drinks, sodas at a movie theater is the biggest rip-off. That everyone can agree on.


----------



## SystemShock

Lazyrider said:


> Sheldon Brown's take on Cinelli happens to be pretty much what I stated about Cinelli's history and where the company is now. Yet you guys try to discredit what he says because you are looking at the quote like a proud parent.


I think that's a pretty selective reading of what Sheldon said. You apparently want to focus on his thrashing of some mid-80s Cinellis, while ignoring stuff like this:

_Add to the equation that many [Cinellis] ride pretty close to perfection - at least as some would define it. Cinelli frames are also a visual feast with Italian style that just won't quit. In Japan, appreciation for Cinelli products is near cult-like.

Over the past several years domestic prices have soared for prime examples. A Cinelli is an icon of cycling tradition. Sure, a few Cinelli frames have some lapses here and there - but don't miss the point. Cinelli frames defined the paradigm of a quality racing bike for decades._

Face it, Cinelli has a history, cachet, tradition, reputation, etc that very few others can match (yes, even after being bought by the guy who owns Columbus, another legendary Italian company). And that is part of the value equation when you buy something like the Xcr.

You say you personally would never buy one. Great, but that's you. I would never spend much money on a carbon fiber frame myself. They are visually uninteresting to me, and feel dead out on the road. That's me. So we're very different. What of it?

The important thing is, the market is big and broad enough that everyone can get what they want. There are few 'wrong' answers, and if some ppl are happily willing to pay, then the Xcr isn't one of 'em. Even if you personally feel otherwise.
.


----------



## The Green Hour

What I find funny about this whole thread is....the criticizer is dissing the Cinelli as an overpriced, underachieving frame. In reality, his Litespeed Classic was an overpriced under achieving frame at the time he purchased it. There is no way that any Ti Litespeed was priced comparable to any other frame at that time. Ti being the "end all, be all" material reserved only for the ones who could afford it and was willing to pay high prices for it's uniqueness and exclusivity.

This sounds a lot like the criticism the Cinelli SS frame is getting from that same guy... 

BTW Caterham....that NSC is one good looking bike.:thumbsup:


----------



## Lazyrider

The Green Hour said:


> What I find funny about this whole thread is....the criticizer is dissing the Cinelli as an overpriced, underachieving frame. In reality, his Litespeed Classic was an overpriced under achieving frame at the time he purchased it. There is no way that any Ti Litespeed was priced comparable to any other frame at that time. Ti being the "end all, be all" material reserved only for the ones who could afford it and was willing to pay high prices for it's uniqueness and exclusivity.
> 
> This sounds a lot like the criticism the Cinelli SS frame is getting from that same guy...
> 
> BTW Caterham....that NSC is one good looking bike.:thumbsup:



You guys are really ridiculous about taking any criticism. You make it seem like I am WAAAAAAY out of line for even questioning the cost of a $4600 steel frame when people here and on the other forums say the same thing that it looks like a nice bike but the price is too high. 

And if steel were still a competitive material as far as weight to stiffness, it would be ridden at the highest levels, but it simply cannot compete with carbon or aluminum for that matter. Ride quality is another matter as a quality steel frame has a sublime ride which I know from my own steel bikes in the past. However, they are no where near as "snappy" as carbon fiber frames.

As far as my Litespeed Classic being overpriced and an underachiever. Well, with 9 speed Dura Ace, the complete bike was a lot less than this Xcr frame at retail. Even adjusted for inflation.
Oh, and btw, that Litespeed Classic was ridden by Lance in Oslo 1993 when he won the World Championship. It was painted to look like team bike and this was told to me by Mr. Lynskey. Hence the World Championship colors on the Litespeed Decals on my old Classic. Underachiever hugh???


----------



## Lazyrider

Lazyrider said:


> You guys are really ridiculous about taking any criticism. You make it seem like I am WAAAAAAY out of line for even questioning the cost of a $4600 steel frame when people here and on the other forums say the same thing that it looks like a nice bike but the price is too high.
> 
> And if steel were still a competitive material as far as weight to stiffness, it would be ridden at the highest levels, but it simply cannot compete with carbon or aluminum for that matter. Ride quality is another matter as a quality steel frame has a sublime ride which I know from my own steel bikes in the past. However, they are no where near as "snappy" as carbon fiber frames.
> 
> As far as my Litespeed Classic being overpriced and an underachiever. Well, with 9 speed Dura Ace, the complete bike was a lot less than this Xcr frame at retail. Even adjusted for inflation.
> Oh, and btw, that Litespeed Classic was ridden by Lance in Oslo 1993 when he won the World Championship. It was painted to look like team bike and this was told to me by Mr. Lynskey. Hence the World Championship colors on the Litespeed Decals on my old Classic. Underachiever hugh???



Oh, because I know you guys will doubt me. Stick this in your bonnet.
https://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/lance-armstrongs-bike-shop-open-for-business-16248


----------



## Lazyrider

The Green Hour said:


> What I find funny about this whole thread is....the criticizer is dissing the Cinelli as an overpriced, underachieving frame. In reality, his Litespeed Classic was an overpriced under achieving frame at the time he purchased it. There is no way that any Ti Litespeed was priced comparable to any other frame at that time. Ti being the "end all, be all" material reserved only for the ones who could afford it and was willing to pay high prices for it's uniqueness and exclusivity.
> 
> This sounds a lot like the criticism the Cinelli SS frame is getting from that same guy...
> 
> BTW Caterham....that NSC is one good looking bike.:thumbsup:



Hey,
Here is Lance "underachieving" on that Litespeed Classic.


----------



## The Green Hour

I'm not actually bashing Litespeed, I was making a sarcastic point. They were good bikes....all of them, but they were overpriced in their current marketplace. The people who bought them are similar to the same people who would buy this bike or a +$5K carbon frame. In their prime, Litespeed was the bike brand to have if you were financially well off, and they payed for that status. Now just like Cinelli (as you so elegantly put it), they are a shell of their former selves. I find a lot of similarities and double standards in the criticism of this frame.

I agree that the Cinelli may be overpriced to "my" standards...and "yours", but you are bashing the concept of the bike and it's material because it doesn't "compare" to carbon or aluminum race bikes. Many folks would actually find that complimentary.


----------



## Lazyrider

The Green Hour said:


> I'm not actually bashing Litespeed, I was making a sarcastic point. They were good bikes....all of them, but they were overpriced in their current marketplace. The people who bought them are similar to the same people who would buy this bike or a +$5K carbon frame. In their prime, Litespeed was the bike brand to have if you were financially well off, and they payed for that status. Now just like Cinelli (as you so elegantly put it), they are a shell of their former selves. I find a lot of similarities and double standards in the criticism of this frame.
> 
> I agree that the Cinelli may be overpriced to "my" standards...and "yours", but you are bashing the concept of the bike and it's material because it doesn't "compare" to carbon or aluminum race bikes. Many folks would actually find that complimentary.


The difference with Litespeed and this Cinelli is that at the time, titanium was the new wonder material, steel is not that now, carbon is. As I proved, that Litespeed was ridden to a World Championship during the advent of titanium frames. That Xcr will never even be ridden in a pro tour. 

But as you said as well as I did, steel offers a different and nicer ride quality. No matter how you cut it, I cannot see the benefit other that stainless doesnt rust to buy this Xcr for $4600 frame only when you can get a complete build from Strong, Seven or Serotta etc and get an equal or better custom ride. YOU PEOPLE DON"T SEE THAT POINT? 

The Xcr is mainly an aesthetic purchase. My titanium Litespeed was a totally different material than what was offered at the time. The Xcr is simply a steel frame made of stainless. Its ride quality and characteristics will be much like any other steel frame and you are paying a premium for its shiny finish and laser etching. 

Are many carbon frames overpriced? Of course they are, but there are great values out there if you are patient. Cinelli made some really nice steel frames in the past, but as a company, look at their website to see what their intentions are now. They are trying to launch their carbon line and they are not different than any of the other companies that want to make their frames in china and increase their profits. The whole "history" and heritage is a marketing ploy.


----------



## rogger

Lazyrider said:


> Hey,
> Here is Lance "underachieving" on that Litespeed Classic.


Wait, what? Lance rode one? Oh man, that just totally proved your point, whatever it may be.


----------



## ClassicSteel71

rogger said:


> Wait, what? Lance rode one? Oh man, that just totally proved your point, whatever it may be.



There is a point to all this ? :mad2:


----------



## Lazyrider

rogger said:


> Wait, what? Lance rode one? Oh man, that just totally proved your point, whatever it may be.



He said that the Litespeed was an "underachiever" frame and I pointed out that it was ridden to a World Championship who happened to be Lance. I know when Lance in injected into a cycling conversation some of you hardcore racers guys get all twisted. Too mainstream for you.


----------



## Le Wrench

This post is getting lame. It's becoming about who can get in the last word.

I suggest it be locked because it's not even about the Cinelli anymore.


----------



## Lazyrider

nocwrench said:


> What is ridiculous is your reply. If you actually read the article in the OP, you will see that the "Columbus XCr tubeset is THE most expensive in the world", and just won an award for materials production.
> 
> You should consider doing at least a little research before you post, as the entire post is riddled with inaccuracies. Like your claim that the Litespeed frameset is lighter, not the case.


The Xcr is the "most expensive STEEL tubeset in the world", not the most expensive frameset across materials. Research, research, research.


----------



## SystemShock

Lazyrider said:


> No matter how you cut it, I cannot see the benefit other that stainless doesnt rust to buy this Xcr for $4600 frame only when you can get a complete build from Strong, Seven or Serotta etc and get an equal or better custom ride. YOU PEOPLE DON"T SEE THAT POINT?


The ppl who are interested in the Xcr see that point and either don't agree, or don't care.

You can shout it 'til you're blue in the face, and they still won't care.

The problem is, you think your priorities should be everyone else's, and that you can argue ppl into adopting your set of priorities in a frame or bike. Sry, but that almost never works.

It is an interesting exercise in futility, though. Have fun with it.
.


----------



## Scooper

Lazyrider said:


> The Xcr is the "most expensive STEEL tubeset in the world", not the most expensive frameset across materials. Research, research, research.


Nova Supply, a Columbus tubing distributor in Rocklin, CA, lists the XCr OS Road tubeset for $625. Fairing Industrial in Chino, CA, one of the U.S. distributors for Reynolds, quotes a 953 OS Road tubeset at $600 - $700, depending on the specific tubes selected.

Columbus specifies the UTS of XCr at 195 ksi, while Reynolds specifies the UTS of 953 at 230 ksi.

XCr elongation is 16%; 953 elongation is 12%.

The price for a complete tubeset for a road bike is essentially the same for XCr and 953. 

The price for a finished frameset varies considerably from one framebuilder to another. For example, a TIG'd Strong XCr or 953 frame will set you back $2,800., while the fork will cost another $335 to $675, depending on the fork.

A polished 953 frame using Sachs Newvex stainless lugs from Waterford is currently $4350, with a matching chrome plated steel fork another $550.

Pricewise, the TIG welded XCr Cinelli is somewhere between the Carl Strong and the Waterford.

What's pretty clear is that a stainless steel tubeset represents from 16% to 25% of the cost of the finished frame.

I think part of the premium charged by framebuilders for XCr and 953 frames is that they're more difficult to work (compared to 853, S3, OX Platinum, Niobium, etc.) and it therefore takes longer, tooling takes more abuse, etc., and part of the premium is the novelty and desirability of higher strength and corrosion resistance by consumers. Whether XCr and 953 frames remain low production botique products, or eventually get produced in much larger volume isn't clear right now (at least to me).

As consumers, we decide how we're going to spend our hard-earned dollars. If Lance wants to spend $15K on a NAHBS show bike from Naked, that shouldn't bother anyone. More power to him.


----------



## Lazyrider

Scooper said:


> Nova Supply, a Columbus tubing distributor in Rocklin, CA, lists the XCr OS Road tubeset for $625. Fairing Industrial in Chino, CA, one of the U.S. distributors for Reynolds, quotes a 953 OS Road tubeset at $600 - $700, depending on the specific tubes selected.
> 
> Columbus specifies the UTS of XCr at 195 ksi, while Reynolds specifies the UTS of 953 at 230 ksi.
> 
> XCr elongation is 16%; 953 elongation is 12%.
> 
> The price for a complete tubeset for a road bike is essentially the same for XCr and 953.
> 
> The price for a finished frameset varies considerably from one framebuilder to another. For example, a TIG'd Strong XCr or 953 frame will set you back $2,800., while the fork will cost another $335 to $675, depending on the fork.
> 
> A polished 953 frame using Sachs Newvex stainless lugs from Waterford is currently $4350, with a matching chrome plated steel fork another $550.
> 
> Pricewise, the TIG welded XCr Cinelli is somewhere between the Carl Strong and the Waterford.
> 
> What's pretty clear is that a stainless steel tubeset represents from 16% to 25% of the cost of the finished frame.
> 
> I think part of the premium charged by framebuilders for XCr and 953 frames is that they're more difficult to work (compared to 853, S3, OX Platinum, Niobium, etc.) and it therefore takes longer, tooling takes more abuse, etc., and part of the premium is the novelty and desirability of higher strength and corrosion resistance by consumers. Whether XCr and 953 frames remain low production botique products, or eventually get produced in much larger volume isn't clear right now (at least to me).
> 
> As consumers, we decide how we're going to spend our hard-earned dollars. If Lance wants to spend $15K on a NAHBS show bike from Naked, that shouldn't bother anyone. More power to him.


Great post and informative. It makes it even more clear to me that my money would be better spent on a smaller "boutique" brand steel frame than Cinelli. I mean, Cinelli seems to have released this frame as a marketing item to promote the brand as they are going full force on their new carbon line. The smaller boutique frame makers concentrate only on steel. 

I am not averse to steel as I said but I find it hard to see why Cinelli's stainless frame should cost more than Strong. As far as the more ornate handmade bikes out there and their costs, I don't think you can put the Xcr in the same category as some of those highly customized frames from tiny manufacturers. They are truly art and the Xcr is very basic in appearence. Yes, that is my opinion but the stiffnesserformance ratio compared to carbon fiber is not opinion, it is a fact.


----------



## merckxman

*Cinelli stuff*

See for history and more:
http://italiancyclingjournal.blogspot.com/2008/09/cinelli.html


----------



## ClassicSteel71

merckxman said:


> See for history and more:
> http://italiancyclingjournal.blogspot.com/2008/09/cinelli.html


Nice link. Thanks for sharing.


----------



## kingennio

Tommasini has introduced a frame with the XCr tubeset.
http://www.tommasini.it/telai/x_fire.html
It's cheapier than the Cinelli and still a renowed brand. The cost should be a bit shy of 2200 euros and can be had with custom geometry and with 2 different finish: satin or polished


----------



## caterham

kingennio said:


> The cost should be a bit shy of 2200 euros and can be had with custom geometry....


 $3387 
(price includes frame, fork, customs & shipping fees. CA sales tax not included)
Custom geometry available for an additional fee.


----------



## kingennio

2200 euros is VAT included 20% in Italy. It seems odd that they sell it overseas at 3387$


----------



## Scooper

The exchange rate is 1 Euro = approx 1.4 USD, so that's a big part of the difference.


----------



## Pdxplosif

Great frame material. With just one caveat; Dents very easily. Like, easier than an old Cannondale. just thought I would throw that out there. As far as aesthetics go, there are none superior.


----------



## a_avery007

yeah steel frames are total noodles that could not be ridden in any tour today..

here is some data provided by another RBR memberI.

"I'll only put bbkt stiffness on here for these bikes. A smaller number means stiffer. They measure movement of the bottom bracket with 40kg weight on the cranks.

A smaller bike typically results with a smaller figure. Of note here the only 'tiny' bike reviewed is the SL2 tarmac. It is still not the stiffest on test though.

08 Ridley Noah - 0.44m
08 Scott Addict R2 - 0.45mm
Pegoretti Marcelo - 0.26mm
08 Pinarello Prince - 0.48mm
08 Bianchi 928 Carbon SL - 0.43mm
08 Look 585 Ultra - 0.26mm
08 Madone 5.2 - 0.48mm
08 Cannondale Super Six - 0.27mm
Scapin Dyesis S8 - 0.34mm
Pegoretti Responsorium - 0.40mm
08 Time Edge Pulse - 0.50mm
08 Bottecchia Ottavio - 0.31mm
Casati Marte - 0.59mm
09 BMC Racemaster - 0.48mm
Parlee Z4 - 0.54mm
09 Specialised Tarmac SL2 - 0.33mm
Guerciotti Khaybar - 0.61mm
09 Cervelo R3SL - 0.35mm
08 Ridley Helium - 0.29mm
Colnago Master X light - 0.35mm
Look 586 - 0.55mm
Independant Fabrication XS - 0.19mm
Willier Cento Uno - 0.52mm
09 Giant Advanced TCR SL - 0.35mm
08 Look 595 - 0.58mm
06 Cervelo Soloist - 0.21mm"


whoa, maybe they could be????


----------



## illnacord

@Lazyrider: Don't be bitter because you took a huge loss on your bike. The problem is also due to your ownership of a brand that is largely on the down. Litespeed is not respected for the most part (due to their business handlings, not due so much for their quality which I find okay), but I agree that titanium in general is fabulous. 

Steel 4130 is cheap, but stainless steel is another story. In fact, the modern day stainless tubesets are equal to titanium tubesets in terms of cost. Importantly, ride quality argument can go for pages on both sides alloy vs composite. 

This is definitely a concept bike that shows Cinelli continuing alloy to match with latest trends of BB30 and integrated headsets. It's redundant as titanium is superior to stainless steel and there are already multiple 10s and 10s of titanium framesets available. Good job Cinelli, but your hits are with aluminum and steel track bikes now.


----------



## Lazyrider

"Bitter"?
If you consider a "huge" loss selling a bike for $1k 13 years after I bought it a "huge" loss. 
This Cinelli stainless is a nice bike, but nothing more than a novelty at this point in time. If you want to ride steel, there are so many other custom options to have a great steel bike made for a whole lot less. The polished stainless is the only difference which is the "novelty" in that frame. 

Carbon, like it or not has the best weight to stiffness ratio and that is the sole reason it is the first choice in the Peleton. Now that carbon has taken over as the primary material, it is natural for steel and titanium to make a resurgence amongst the contrarians. I enjoy all bike materials and see the positives in them all. Steel is a sublime ride as is my titanium, but carbon is just as comfortable and a lot lighter. Aluminum is the only material that I don't enjoy riding. Steel can be sweet but I can flex most any steel frame that doesn't wiegh a ton. 



illnacord said:


> @Lazyrider: Don't be bitter because you took a huge loss on your bike. The problem is also due to your ownership of a brand that is largely on the down. Litespeed is not respected for the most part (due to their business handlings, not due so much for their quality which I find okay), but I agree that titanium in general is fabulous.
> 
> Steel 4130 is cheap, but stainless steel is another story. In fact, the modern day stainless tubesets are equal to titanium tubesets in terms of cost. Importantly, ride quality argument can go for pages on both sides alloy vs composite.
> 
> This is definitely a concept bike that shows Cinelli continuing alloy to match with latest trends of BB30 and integrated headsets. It's redundant as titanium is superior to stainless steel and there are already multiple 10s and 10s of titanium framesets available. Good job Cinelli, but your hits are with aluminum and steel track bikes now.


----------



## ultimobici

Lazyrider said:


> I can flex most any steel frame that doesn't wiegh a ton.


 _08 Ridley Noah - 0.44mC
08 Scott Addict R2 - 0.45mmC
Pegoretti Marcelo - 0.26mmSTEEL!!!
08 Pinarello Prince - 0.48mmC
08 Bianchi 928 Carbon SL - 0.43mmC
08 Look 585 Ultra - 0.26mmC
08 Madone 5.2 - 0.48mmC
08 Cannondale Super Six - 0.27mmC
Scapin Dyesis S8 - 0.34mmSTEEL!!
Pegoretti Responsorium - 0.40mmSTEEL!
08 Time Edge Pulse - 0.50mmC
08 Bottecchia Ottavio - 0.31mmC
Casati Marte - 0.59mmC
09 BMC Racemaster - 0.48mmC
Parlee Z4 - 0.54mmC
09 Specialised Tarmac SL2 - 0.33mmC
Guerciotti Khaybar - 0.61mmC
09 Cervelo R3SL - 0.35mmC
08 Ridley Helium - 0.29mmC
Colnago Master X light - 0.35mmSTEEL!!
Look 586 - 0.55mmC
Independant Fabrication XS - 0.19mmSTEEL!!
Willier Cento Uno - 0.52mmC
09 Giant Advanced TCR SL - 0.35mmC
08 Look 595 - 0.58mmC
06 Cervelo Soloist - 0.21mm"C_

Interestingly the majority of the stiffest frames tested are steel. My Marcelo is not super light at 1700g for the frame but built up to a 7.4kg bike with stock kit and alloy rims. Yet to meet anyone who could get a Marcelo to flex noticeably. My flatmate who's an ex-trackie is kicking himself for selling his. Snaps stuff left, right and centre but couldn't make the Marcelo budge, go figure!

There seems to be an obsession with super stiff and super light. I am guilty myself, but when forced to use the heavier set up you find other qualities come to the fore to compensate.

BTW, that bike in Mellow Johnny's don't seem to be the same bike in the Oslo pic. 9 speed on a Caloi is 95, 8 speed on a Merckx is 93. Granted they did build for Merckx too.


----------



## Lazyrider

ultimobici said:


> _08 Ridley Noah - 0.44mC
> 08 Scott Addict R2 - 0.45mmC
> Pegoretti Marcelo - 0.26mmSTEEL!!!
> 08 Pinarello Prince - 0.48mmC
> 08 Bianchi 928 Carbon SL - 0.43mmC
> 08 Look 585 Ultra - 0.26mmC
> 08 Madone 5.2 - 0.48mmC
> 08 Cannondale Super Six - 0.27mmC
> Scapin Dyesis S8 - 0.34mmSTEEL!!
> Pegoretti Responsorium - 0.40mmSTEEL!
> 08 Time Edge Pulse - 0.50mmC
> 08 Bottecchia Ottavio - 0.31mmC
> Casati Marte - 0.59mmC
> 09 BMC Racemaster - 0.48mmC
> Parlee Z4 - 0.54mmC
> 09 Specialised Tarmac SL2 - 0.33mmC
> Guerciotti Khaybar - 0.61mmC
> 09 Cervelo R3SL - 0.35mmC
> 08 Ridley Helium - 0.29mmC
> Colnago Master X light - 0.35mmSTEEL!!
> Look 586 - 0.55mmC
> Independant Fabrication XS - 0.19mmSTEEL!!
> Willier Cento Uno - 0.52mmC
> 09 Giant Advanced TCR SL - 0.35mmC
> 08 Look 595 - 0.58mmC
> 06 Cervelo Soloist - 0.21mm"C_
> 
> Interestingly the majority of the stiffest frames tested are steel. My Marcelo is not super light at 1700g for the frame but built up to a 7.4kg bike with stock kit and alloy rims. Yet to meet anyone who could get a Marcelo to flex noticeably. My flatmate who's an ex-trackie is kicking himself for selling his. Snaps stuff left, right and centre but couldn't make the Marcelo budge, go figure!
> 
> There seems to be an obsession with super stiff and super light. I am guilty myself, but when forced to use the heavier set up you find other qualities come to the fore to compensate.
> 
> BTW, that bike in Mellow Johnny's don't seem to be the same bike in the Oslo pic. 9 speed on a Caloi is 95, 8 speed on a Merckx is 93. Granted they did build for Merckx too.



Hi,
As I stated, it is the weight to stiffness ratio that makes carbon the best choice. This is elementary stuff I know, but if steel were as good as an option, then why haven't the pros used it in over 20 years? Yes, any frame of whatever material can be made super stiff, but at a huge weight penalty. 1700 grams is "heavy" by today's standards. You can get a carbon frame as stiff 750 grams lighter. That is HUGE. 

Steel has a magnificent ride quality, so I am not knocking steel as a material, but that Cinelli is way bloated in price when you can have a custom Strong steel frame built for less than 1/2. 

As far as the Caloi, go to this link and scroll down until you see bike. It is a Litespeed and is the same as my Classic. 
http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/lance-armstrongs-bike-shop-open-for-business-16248


----------



## a_avery007

geez, this is getting to be amatuerish..

bike co's like any other company are in the business to sell product!

newer is better, right. how many applications does one need to surf the net? rhetorical question...you get the point.

you can get a steel bike down to the UCI minumum easy.

Carbon is the most profitable right now.

comes down to fit, design, geometry and builder, and finally-material...


----------



## Henry Chinaski

holy cromoly said:


> ]


What's up with the replaceable AL hanger on a steel dropout? Paragon Machine Works offers something similar. I don't get it. I've never met a quality steel dropout/hanger that couldn't be bent back.


----------



## ultimobici

Lazyrider said:


> Hi,
> As I stated, it is the weight to stiffness ratio that makes carbon the best choice. This is elementary stuff I know, but if steel were as good as an option, then why haven't the pros used it in over 20 years? Yes, any frame of whatever material can be made super stiff, but at a huge weight penalty. 1700 grams is "heavy" by today's standards. You can get a carbon frame as stiff 750 grams lighter. That is HUGE.
> 
> Steel has a magnificent ride quality, so I am not knocking steel as a material, but that Cinelli is way bloated in price when you can have a custom Strong steel frame built for less than 1/2.
> 
> As far as the Caloi, go to this link and scroll down until you see bike. It is a Litespeed and is the same as my Classic.
> http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/lance-armstrongs-bike-shop-open-for-business-16248


 The pros use what their sponsor gives them. Carbon is the best material for the job at their level.
I should have stated that the Peg is 9 years old and on its third respray as I got bored with the colour yet again. It's been crashed on several occasions and still is straight and true. 
The best way to describe my VXRS is "A Marcelo that's gone on a diet without losing the good bits" The frame, forks stem & seatpost weigh less than the bare Marcelo. But, after one run in with a van and superficial damage, it has to go back to France for repair or may be written off.
Comparing cost of any European frame to any US built frame on cost is futile. The cost of the tubeset is a tiny fraction of the overall. Labour costs, rent costs etc will be much higher in Northern Italy than Montana for starters. Duty and other taxes not to mention carriage to the US need to be considered.
On the Calio - Cyclingnews are wrong plain and simple. Caloi supplied Motorola in 95. Casartelli died on one, but Lance won in Oslo on a Merckx.
Couple of photos from then courtesy Graham Watson http://grahamwatson.com/gw/imagedocs.nsf/updateframesetcall?openform&05la1


----------



## Troy16

These frames are an ok novelty. The price is laughable. Mostly padded by marketing hype. Carl Strong can build you the same frame from the same material for $2k+ less. The prices of frames like this and those being built by Pegoretti have so much fluff, hype and BS built into the price its a joke to even try to argue logically that you are somehow getting decent value. PT Barnum would be proud of the marketing BS and fluff built into the prices of this overated hugely overhyped stuff. Suckers born every day. LOL


----------



## bmxhacksaw

Bet you guys didn't know Cinelli made BMX bikes (w/anodized Campy parts) BITD.










I know where a Cinelli BMX frame is right now but it's cracked near the head tube so it ain't worth much.


----------



## ultimobici

Troy16 said:


> These frames are an ok novelty. The price is laughable. Mostly padded by marketing hype. Carl Strong can build you the same frame from the same material for $2k+ less. The prices of frames like this and those being built by Pegoretti have so much fluff, hype and BS built into the price its a joke to even try to argue logically that you are somehow getting decent value. PT Barnum would be proud of the marketing BS and fluff built into the prices of this overated hugely overhyped stuff. Suckers born every day. LOL


Difference between Dario and Carl is that Dario was the guy Dedacciai went to to design the EOM tubeset my Marcelo was built from. You can buy any number of EOM tubed frames but none of them will have the tubeset he used on my frame. I'm not suggesting that a Strong frameset is not a fine frame but given the choice of $2500 plus duty for the Strong or €2000 for the Peg, I'll go for the TdF/Giro etc proven builder. Good enough for Miguel, Greg, Marco, Pedro etc - good enough for me. If I was in th US then I suspect the costs of it would be reversed and the decision harder. As to value for money, 9 years and 2 resprays on, I think I've had my money's worth! Mind you it was only €1200 then!


----------



## Fogdweller

ultimobici said:


> On the Calio - Cyclingnews are wrong plain and simple. Caloi supplied Motorola in 95. Casartelli died on one, but Lance won in Oslo on a Merckx.


Ummm... I was hoping to stay out of this one as it's gone terribly off-course from the OP but you might want to look at this:
http://www.bikeradar.com/gallery/ar...-bike-shop-open-for-business&mlc=news/article


----------



## ultimobici

Fogdweller said:


> Ummm... I was hoping to stay out of this one as it's gone terribly off-course from the OP but you might want to look at this:
> http://www.bikeradar.com/gallery/article/lance-armstrongs-bike-shop-open-for-business-16248?img=6&pn=lance-armstrongs-bike-shop-open-for-business&mlc=news%2Farticle


Another occasion where Bikeradar/Cylingnews mis label a photo.

Every pic of LA crossing the line in Oslo is a Merckx. The head badge is EM, the fork graphics are Merckx. Motorola were on Caloi by Merckx bikes in 95. All the photos of LA from 93 & 94 are on Merckx frames.

Yet another 93 pic of a Merckx. CN/BR's "93 Bike" is more likely his 96 Olympic Road bike, seeing as it appears to be running Dura Ace 7700 with 8 speed cranks and Mavic Cosmics. None of this existed before that year bar the cranks!

I am such an anorak!

Happy New Year All, even Lance!


----------



## Kuma601

The point of the Cinelli XCr is that someone will enjoy riding it regardless of price, heritage, flex-stiffness... With as many frames available now, there is a flavor for each rider's preference.


----------



## Lazyrider

ultimobici said:


> Another occasion where Bikeradar/Cylingnews mis label a photo.
> 
> Every pic of LA crossing the line in Oslo is a Merckx. The head badge is EM, the fork graphics are Merckx. Motorola were on Caloi by Merckx bikes in 95. All the photos of LA from 93 & 94 are on Merckx frames.
> 
> Yet another 93 pic of a Merckx. CN/BR's "93 Bike" is more likely his 96 Olympic Road bike, seeing as it appears to be running Dura Ace 7700 with 8 speed cranks and Mavic Cosmics. None of this existed before that year bar the cranks!
> 
> I am such an anorak!
> 
> Happy New Year All, even Lance!


So,
The Caloi he has hanging at his Mellow Johnny's store is a mistake? He has stated on numerous occasions that he won it on a rebadged Litespeed.


----------



## ultimobici

Lazyrider said:


> So,
> The Caloi he has hanging at his Mellow Johnny's store is a mistake? He has stated on numerous occasions that he won it on a rebadged Litespeed.


Not disputing the Litespeed build at all. But that bike ain't it. Litespeed supplied most of the Motorola riders who rode the 93 Tour with frames, as did they in 94. Indeed if you bought a Merckx Ti frame then it was built for them by Litespeed too. Sadly that had to stop in 96 after the Lynskey family sold Litespeed to ABG.


----------



## Lazyrider

ultimobici said:


> Not disputing the Litespeed build at all. But that bike ain't it. Litespeed supplied most of the Motorola riders who rode the 93 Tour with frames, as did they in 94. Indeed if you bought a Merckx Ti frame then it was built for them by Litespeed too. Sadly that had to stop in 96 after the Lynskey family sold Litespeed to ABG.


You know, you are right. The frame he won Worlds on was a EM made by Litespeed. In fact, I had an email from Lynskey back in the late 90s about the World Champion colors sticker on my Litespeed Classic. Good call


----------



## ultimobici

Lazyrider said:


> You know, you are right. The frame he won Worlds on was a EM made by Litespeed. In fact, I had an email from Lynskey back in the late 90s about the World Champion colors sticker on my Litespeed Classic. Good call


Ah, the good old days! Lance rode a full season, was impetuous and less of a d***head. Happy days!


----------



## tihsepa

This thread started out good then went to crap.

First carbon this and that BS then Lance this and that BS. 

Back to the subject. I really like the bike originally posted. 




You people sure know how to screw up a good thread.


----------



## The Green Hour

Lazyrider said:


> You know, you are right. The frame he won Worlds on was a EM made by Litespeed. In fact, I had an email from Lynskey back in the late 90s about the World Champion colors sticker on my Litespeed Classic. Good call


Apology accepted for mixing up the Classic and the Merckx Litespeed..... 
A little harmless ribbing, now we can move on...:thumbsup::wink:


----------



## Lazyrider

The Green Hour said:


> Apology accepted for mixing up the Classic and the Merckx Litespeed.....
> A little harmless ribbing, now we can move on...:thumbsup::wink:


Yeah,
I apologize for the mix up, but a Litespeed nonetheless.

http://www.litespeed.com/docs/VN14041.pdf


----------



## JM714

ultimobici said:


> _08 Ridley Noah - 0.44mC
> 08 Scott Addict R2 - 0.45mmC
> Pegoretti Marcelo - 0.26mmSTEEL!!!
> 08 Pinarello Prince - 0.48mmC
> 08 Bianchi 928 Carbon SL - 0.43mmC
> 08 Look 585 Ultra - 0.26mmC
> 08 Madone 5.2 - 0.48mmC
> 08 Cannondale Super Six - 0.27mmC
> Scapin Dyesis S8 - 0.34mmSTEEL!!
> Pegoretti Responsorium - 0.40mmSTEEL!
> 08 Time Edge Pulse - 0.50mmC
> 08 Bottecchia Ottavio - 0.31mmC
> Casati Marte - 0.59mmC
> 09 BMC Racemaster - 0.48mmC
> Parlee Z4 - 0.54mmC
> 09 Specialised Tarmac SL2 - 0.33mmC
> Guerciotti Khaybar - 0.61mmC
> 09 Cervelo R3SL - 0.35mmC
> 08 Ridley Helium - 0.29mmC
> Colnago Master X light - 0.35mmSTEEL!!
> Look 586 - 0.55mmC
> Independant Fabrication XS - 0.19mmSTEEL!!
> Willier Cento Uno - 0.52mmC
> 09 Giant Advanced TCR SL - 0.35mmC
> 08 Look 595 - 0.58mmC
> 06 Cervelo Soloist - 0.21mm"C_
> 
> Interestingly the majority of the stiffest frames tested are steel. My Marcelo is not super light at 1700g for the frame but built up to a 7.4kg bike with stock kit and alloy rims. Yet to meet anyone who could get a Marcelo to flex noticeably. My flatmate who's an ex-trackie is kicking himself for selling his. Snaps stuff left, right and centre but couldn't make the Marcelo budge, go figure!
> 
> There seems to be an obsession with super stiff and super light. I am guilty myself, but when forced to use the heavier set up you find other qualities come to the fore to compensate.
> 
> BTW, that bike in Mellow Johnny's don't seem to be the same bike in the Oslo pic. 9 speed on a Caloi is 95, 8 speed on a Merckx is 93. Granted they did build for Merckx too.


I saw recently on the internet that supposedly Boonen won the 2007 TdF Green Jersey while riding a Pegoretti Marcelo painted in Specialized colors. That was year I think he was having back issues. Go ahead and google "Pegoretti Boonen" and see what you come up with. I'm not saying it's true, but it's out there.


----------



## ncc80brian

*Just finished my Cinelli XCR*

It rides amazing.


----------



## Oasisbill

ncc80brian said:


> It rides amazing.


 This is just beautiful.


----------



## Mark Kelly

Henry Chinaski said:


> What's up with the replaceable AL hanger on a steel dropout? Paragon Machine Works offers something similar. I don't get it. I've never met a quality steel dropout/hanger that couldn't be bent back.


The Paragon dropouts are made from 17-4 stainless which is a precipitation hardenable grade. As I understand it, this is to avoid the situation which occurs with cast stainless lugs where the stainless tubing is four (XCr) to six (953) times the strength of the lug material.

If you add work hardening of the hanger (from bending back) to the precipitation hardening you would be pushing the material closer to the point where it has no capacity for elongation left eg it becomes prone to brittle fracture. It thus makes sense to make the hanger replaceable and if it's going to be replaceable you might as well make it from Aluminium alloy.


----------



## dakrisht

tihsepa said:


> This thread started out good then went to crap.
> 
> First carbon this and that BS then Lance this and that BS.
> 
> Back to the subject. I really like the bike originally posted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You people sure know how to screw up a good thread.


Seriously. I scrolled for almost 10 seconds through paragraphs and paragraphs of idiotic bickering and empty words.

What is wrong with some of you people... 

The XCr is a gorgeous frame, Cinelli has legendary heritage and tradition.

Looks are purely subjective, but it's tough to say any fat carbon bike looks better than classic steel frames. They're just gorgeous, fine lines, delicate - classic. But that's not what this thread is about. Let's get more pics of Cinelli's and the XCr.

I'll post mine this weekend


----------



## turbogrover

I know its all subjective, but the XCR looks very bland to me. I prefer frames with color on them myself. The pic of the older blue Cinelli looks very sexy, combined with the attention to detail of construction. The XCR looks more generic to me. I'm sure it rides pretty good.


----------



## Don Duende

holy cromoly said:


> $4600 is some change. So pretty though, must resist the bright shiney object...
> Even though I like a steel fork for a steel frame, that is one nice looking carbon fork. Good to hear they designed one just for the XCR. The lines and thinness of the carbon fork legs match the frame well.
> 
> BTW, if anyone is a large, GVH bike has only one large XCR at $3500.
> 
> . . : : G V H : : B I K E S : : . .


Not cheap, but about the same price as a polished Lynskey frame. So IMO, not unreasonable for a Cinelli. I rode one briefly a couple of years ago, nice ride.


----------

