# What is the stiffest carbon road frame out there?



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

Would like to know what is the stiffest carbon frame on the market right now that is easily available. I'm looking at the Ridley Noah Pro frame right now, but is there an even stiffer one?

I don't care about comfort nor weight. I want all out stiffness at all cost.


----------



## Warpdatframe (Dec 9, 2012)

Most people are going to say that you don't need all out stiffness. Unless you are over 200 pounds and can do 1800w you probably don't the stiffest frame. Anyways here are some of the stiffest frames:

Giant tcr
Cervelo r5
Cannondale supersix
Specalized tarmac sl4


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

deleted


----------



## albert owen (Jul 7, 2008)

Apparently it is between the Supersix and the TCR SL.


----------



## Cinelli 82220 (Dec 2, 2010)

The new Merckx 525 is very stiff.
I didn't think the Cervelo R5 was stiff, felt more like flimsy and brittle to me.
I don't think the Giant TCR is very stiff, felt quite comfortable to me.
Cipollini RB1000 is supposedly very stiff.

Alternatively, a few aftermarket companies can stiffen up your carbon frame if needed.


----------



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

Cinelli 82220 said:


> The new Merckx 525 is very stiff.
> I didn't think the Cervelo R5 was stiff, felt more like flimsy and brittle to me.
> I don't think the Giant TCR is very stiff, felt quite comfortable to me.
> Cipollini RB1000 is supposedly very stiff.
> ...


I see less 525's out there and the previous emx-5 emx-7. How is that possible?


----------



## Dunbar (Aug 8, 2010)

As of the May issue of Velonews the Cannondale Supersix EVO and Focus Izalco are the two stiffest bikes they've tested. Interestingly, the Specialized S-Works SL4 Roubaix is the third stiffest bike they've tested. That's right, an endurance bike is stiffer than the majority of race bikes.


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

Scott addicts and foils are stiff. I like my foil a lot--the faster I go the more composed it feels.


----------



## JackDaniels (Oct 4, 2011)

My litespeed c1 with a hollowgram crank is stiffer than anything else I've personally ridden, including supersix, venge, absolutist, foil, s5. But there are a lot of bikes I've never ridden.


----------



## redondoaveb (Jan 16, 2011)

Noah Pro is definitely a stiff frame, not sure how if compares with the others. I'm liking mine!


----------



## jeepsouth (Nov 28, 2011)

Argon 18 Gallium Pro


----------



## spdntrxi (Jul 25, 2013)

Look 695 SR is one stiff bike.. so much so I opted for the 695.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

Warpdatframe said:


> Most people are going to say that you don't need all out stiffness. Unless you are over 200 pounds and can do 1800w you probably don't the stiffest frame. Anyways here are some of the stiffest frames:
> 
> Giant tcr
> Cervelo r5
> ...


I don't think these are the "outright" stiffest frames.

As I recall, reading various reviews of these "SL"-ish frames, they are stiff relative to their weight. The Tarmac SL4 is an example of such "relative stiffeness". But I don't think there is anyway the SL4 can come close to the stiffness of the Noah Pro (granted, the Noah Pro is a boat anchor, but I don't care about weight).

So far, I think still going with the Ridley Noah Pro though. Reason is the Noah Pro is a very confident inspiring on the descent. I think its heavy mass serve to keep the bike stable.

And besides, I really don't like (almost hate even) all these "SL"-ish bikes because they feel so tinny and fragile.

Keep the suggestions coming please....


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

The Felt F1 Sprint is about as rigid as a road frame can be, if you could find one...


----------



## thumper8888 (Apr 7, 2009)

Had the Noah, now on s-works sl4 tarmac and s-works venge.
Both are torsionally stiffer, which is what you want.
Both also ride significantly better, which you also want.
Noah was a breathtakingly pretty frame but substantially heavier. And the tube shapes and wall thicknesses (read: cruder engineering) were such that it rode like a coal cart. Really, really harsh. Not in the same class as the Venge, let alone the SL4 for ride or stiffness.

I'd take a lot of convincing that making a frame heavier means it handles better on descending. It might be fractionaly faster, like bulking up your own weight. But it's not going to handle better simply because it's heavier. No way.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

redondoaveb said:


> Noah Pro is definitely a stiff frame, not sure how if compares with the others. I'm liking mine!


How is it on the descent? Is it confidence-inspiring to flick it hard into a corner? Many of the light bikes I find them to be unnerving at times if I change directions abruptly and violently.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

thumper8888 said:


> Had the Noah, now on s-works sl4 tarmac and s-works venge.
> Both are torsionally stiffer, which is what you want.
> Both also ride significantly better, which you also want.
> Noah was a breathtakingly pretty frame but substantially heavier. And the tube shapes and wall thicknesses (read: cruder engineering) were such that it rode like a coal cart. Really, really harsh. Not in the same class as the Venge, let alone the SL4 for ride or stiffness.
> ...


hmm so you are saying the Tarmac SL4 is stiffer and also rides smoother than the Noah Pro? Interesting.

As for frame weight on descending. Well I'm not scientist and neither are many of us in here, but I ride the big mountain weekly and have tested a number of frames both uber light and uber heavy, and I prefer the heavy aggressive ones.


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

aclinjury said:


> I ride the big mountain weekly and have tested a number of frames both uber light and uber heavy, and I prefer the heavy aggressive ones.


Initially, I was going to recommend "Tour" magazine's bike reviews, until I discovered they quit publishing an English version. Their reviews are in depth and exceptional.

Anyway...to your comment above...your likes remind me of the Pinarello Dogma 2 I owned. Rode very smoothly and carved up descents like it was on rails. I suspect it's pretty stiff.

Also, take a look at the bikes ridden by the top sprinters as they generally require stiff frames.


----------



## redondoaveb (Jan 16, 2011)

aclinjury said:


> How is it on the descent? Is it confidence-inspiring to flick it hard into a corner? Many of the light bikes I find them to be unnerving at times if I change directions abruptly and violently.


I feel very confident descending on mine. Get into a tuck and hold on and enjoy the ride. It really doesn't do anything wrong as far as cornering, although with my 25mm wheels and 25mm tires I really don't flick it hard into corners. It does respond quickly with minor input though. FWIW, mine weighs in a little over 16 pounds with pedals and computer. Oh yeah, mine is an x-small though.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

velocite claims their magnus is the stiffest frame in the world:

Velocite Magnus, the stiffest road frame on the planet | Velocite Bikes blog, news and updates


----------



## r1lee (Jul 22, 2012)

Giant advanced TCR SL

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=I2ZTWadMRw8&desktop_uri=/watch?v=I2ZTWadMRw8


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

stevesbike said:


> velocite claims their magnus is the stiffest frame in the world:
> 
> Velocite Magnus, the stiffest road frame on the planet | Velocite Bikes blog, news and updates


Interesting. I like it

Would have been nice to see their stiffness chart include the Dogma 2 and Noah Pro in there too.

as much as I like it, it's a little hard for me to dish out 2000 dollars for it when I can get a Noah Pro from competitive cyclist for 1600ish bux with uber good warranty. 

btw, the Magnus reminds me a bit of the Fuji SST


[edited:]

I went back and looked at their torsional chart again. I was a little suprise to find that they rated the Spesh Venge with such low stiffness, while the Spesh SL3 was much higher. I wonder if Specialized agrees? Also not on the chart is the Giant Propel. Would be interesting to see how the Propel rate.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

r1lee said:


> Giant advanced TCR SL
> 
> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=I2ZTWadMRw8&desktop_uri=/watch?v=I2ZTWadMRw8


Thanks. I watched this video awhile back. Always good to see it again.
I'm very surprised to see how low the Venge rates considering that it's a "sprinter's bike".

I noticed that Giant did not include the Dogma 2, Fuji SST 1.0, the Noah Pro in their tests. But I realize it's a marketing video.. i.e, pick the biggest brand names that you know you can beat and chart it.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

redondoaveb said:


> I feel very confident descending on mine. Get into a tuck and hold on and enjoy the ride. It really doesn't do anything wrong as far as cornering, although with my 25mm wheels and 25mm tires I really don't flick it hard into corners. It does respond quickly with minor input though. FWIW, mine weighs in a little over 16 pounds with pedals and computer. Oh yeah, mine is an x-small though.


I'm also looking at size xsmall. How tall are you? I'm 5'7" and I'm a little concern that that even their xs frame (52.5cm effective TT) is a tad long for me? Thoughts?

25mm rims with 25mm tires are perfect for throwing a bike around.


----------



## redondoaveb (Jan 16, 2011)

aclinjury said:


> I'm also looking at size xsmall. How tall are you? I'm 5'7" and I'm a little concern that that even their xs frame (52.5cm effective TT) is a tad long for me? Thoughts?
> 
> 25mm rims with 25mm tires are perfect for throwing a bike around.


I'm 5'-7" also. I'm using a 110mm stem. Not too stretched out. Top tube length feels good for me. 

I haven't run 23mm tires on this bike but I can tell you that my 23's had quicker turning input than 25's on my other bike. 25's definitely give you more confidence in the twisty sections though.


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

I'm curious. If you aren't concerned with weight, why are you restricting your search to carbon fiber? The CAAD10 is at least as stiff as most of the frames you're talking about, and it costs a fractions. 

Just saying.


----------



## Duke249 (Apr 4, 2002)

The stiffest bicycle I ever rode was a Specialized S-Works SL3 Tarmac. Awesome power transfer. Awfully painful after 50 miles. Keep in mind one of the selling points of the SL4 is that it has a slightly softer, more refined ride quality than the SL3. It was truly a beast.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

Fireform said:


> I'm curious. If you aren't concerned with weight, why are you restricting your search to carbon fiber? The CAAD10 is at least as stiff as most of the frames you're talking about, and it costs a fractions.
> 
> Just saying.


a very valid question. It comes down to personal. I've had a number of metal frames in my on-and-off cycling venture, both on the pavement and on the dirt. I already have a great aluminum/carbon frame. I also have a steel frame. At this point, I don't want another aluminum frame. I do want a stiff, aero, and compact carbon frame, and so I like what I see in the Noah Pro, and Competitive is selling one for $1700 which fits my wallet. But if I was racing and expecting to crash, then yes the Caad 10 would be no brainer.


----------



## Donn12 (Apr 10, 2012)

For what you want try a dogma. ultra stiff feel and great ride.


----------



## willieboy (Nov 27, 2010)

BH Ultralight is worth a look


----------



## thalo (Jul 17, 2011)

My 2009 Fuji SST 2.0 is the stiffest frame out there. SST is Super Stiff Team, the name says it all.


----------



## Waspinator (Jul 5, 2013)

aclinjury said:


> Would like to know what is the stiffest carbon frame on the market right now that is easily available. I'm looking at the Ridley Noah Pro frame right now, but is there an even stiffer one?
> 
> I don't care about comfort nor weight. I want all out stiffness at all cost.



Let me answer your question with a couple of questions:

1. How would you define stiffness? Stiffness in what direction? Stiffness of what part of the bike?

2. Do you honestly think anyone has taken each road frame, put them on machines to flex them, and recorded the various numbers indicating stiffness?

3. How would anyone here know which frame is the most stiff? Most people here have owned three, maybe four carbon fiber frames at most. And I wouldn't trust any of them to tell the difference in stiffness between the frames they’ve owned, let alone compare them to frames they’ve never owned. I wouldn’t even trust myself to do that either.

My point is this: you need to test-ride the bike/frame you want to buy if possible, and go from there. The only other thing I could suggest is seeing what kind of carbon fiber is used in the frame. The Noah Pro uses 50- and 40-ton carbon fiber. The Noah RS, in contrast, uses 30-ton, so presumably it’s not as stiff - _all else being equal_. Obviously, the design of the frame plays a bigger role than the type of carbon fiber.


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

Waspinator said:


> 2. Do you honestly think anyone has taken each road frame, put them on machines to flex them, and recorded the various numbers indicating stiffness?.


This sort of testing is in fact done. Not for every frame, but for a number of high end frames. The most popular test involves fixing the front dropouts, placing a load at the 3 o'clock position on the bb, and measuring deflection at various points. 

I thought, given the engineering savvy you showed in the bb adaptor thread, you would be aware of this?


----------



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

Great point on the Aluminum poster.
Also I wonder how many people are assigning stiffness to a frame ignoring the contribution of the bottom bracket and the wheels. There's also a tendency to tout what you already have and engage in confirmation bias.


----------



## perpetuum_mobile (Nov 30, 2012)

The purpose of this thread is to advertise CompetitiveCyclist and Ridley bikes. Obvious troll is obvious.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

redondoaveb said:


> I'm 5'-7" also. I'm using a 110mm stem. Not too stretched out. Top tube length feels good for me.
> 
> I haven't run 23mm tires on this bike but I can tell you that my 23's had quicker turning input than 25's on my other bike. 25's definitely give you more confidence in the twisty sections though.


did you have to cut the seatmast down to make the frame fit you?

As for tires, I mainly want 25c to make it last longer, particularly the rear. I actually am thinking of running a harder tire in the rear (eg, 25c Conti GP4000) and a softer and narrorer tire up front (eg, 23c Vittoria). It doesn't make sense to me to use the same tires for front and rear when the demands of the front and rear are different. Motorcycles don't run the same tires front and rear, and I don't believe a racing bicycle should either.

As for steering, yeah tire size will affect it a bit. But the frame geometry (eg, rake, wheelbase, head angle) will affect steering much more than the difference between a 23c and 25c. My old Casati racing steel bike from the 90s steer quicker than most of the modern racing carbon bikes. The reason is because the Casati has a steep head angle, and short wheelbase (kinda like a track bike), but it's a twitchy bike and sometimes you can oversteer it if you flick it too hard in fast corner. I wish the modern carbon bikes would have shorter chainstays!


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

perpetuum_mobile said:


> The purpose of this thread is to advertise CompetitiveCyclist and Ridley bikes. Obvious troll is obvious.


I've been posting around here longer than you, and you're the first accusing me of trolling for Competitive and Ridley. In fact, you're the first to accuse me of trolling for any brand. And in your self-righteous attempt calll me out, you yourself fail to see your own "advertisement" for Competitive and Ridley.

(and I see that you have written Competitive as "CompetitiveCyclist" in an attempt to side step the automatic hyperlinking feature of RBR. You ever wonder why RBR is automatically hyperlinking the name??)

move on, son.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

Donn12 said:


> For what you want try a dogma. ultra stiff feel and great ride.


This is also on my list. But the Dogma frame not a cheap frame. And also, when you build a Dogma up, there's a definite expectation that you'll use a certain level of components (eg, expensive Italian stuff). The final damage to the wallet will be steep for what is essentially be another bike among my various bikes.

Now if I go with something else, I can just slap on my already-existing Shimano Ultegra/Dura Ace mix of components, a pair of used Boyd carbon wheelset, and I'm set. I suppose could do this to a Dogma frame, but c'mon that's not proper build!


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

thalo said:


> My 2009 Fuji SST 2.0 is the stiffest frame out there. SST is Super Stiff Team, the name says it all.


It's a shame that Fuji discontinued their orginal SST 1.0.
Trust me, I've been browsing ebay and craigslist for the SST 1.0 in my size for at least 6 months now! None so far. And I've seen these used SST 1.0 frames go for over $1000 on ebay (so apparently it's still very desirable). But over $1000 for a used frame on ebay is too much IMO when online sellers are clearing stock at this time of year. I wish somebody would clear their old SST 1.0 stock!!! I'd be all over it if my size came up!


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

albert owen said:


> Apparently it is between the Supersix and the TCR SL.


These are stiff for their weight, but not sure about outright.

Giant also has their new Propel. I wonder who the Propel compares to the TCR. My bet is the Propel might be stiffer since Giant tout the Propel as the sprinter's bike (Giant marketing even took a public stab at the Specialized Venge when they rolled out their Propel! gotta love Giant.)


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

aclinjury said:


> ...when you build a Dogma up, there's a definite expectation that you'll use a certain level of components (eg, expensive Italian stuff)...I suppose could do this to a Dogma frame, but c'mon that's not proper build!


Nonsense. Team Sky Pinarello Dogma 65.1 bikes are equipped with Shimano. 

Have you ever gone on the official Pinarello website? Take a look at the photos of the Dogma 65.1. It's built with Dura Ace.


----------



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

aclinjury said:


> This is also on my list. But the Dogma frame not a cheap frame. And also, when you build a Dogma up, there's a definite expectation that you'll use a certain level of components (eg, expensive Italian stuff). The final damage to the wallet will be steep for what is essentially be another bike among my various bikes.
> 
> Now if I go with something else, I can just slap on my already-existing Shimano Ultegra/Dura Ace mix of components, a pair of used Boyd carbon wheelset, and I'm set. I suppose could do this to a Dogma frame, but c'mon that's not proper build!


You are confusing marketing with real life. Pinarello tries to play up the italian aspect of the brand despite having the frames manufactured in asia. They do this by exaggerating the italian pronounciations in the ads "pinarello" , "ondo" and of course using campy compoments in the ads adds to that. In the real world lots of people outfit these bikes with shimano, and more of those people use ultegra than dura ace, which is shimano's solution for extracting more money from those that will spend it.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

Waspinator said:


> Let me answer your question with a couple of questions:
> 
> 1. How would you define stiffness? Stiffness in what direction? Stiffness of what part of the bike?
> 
> ...


Point well taken, and you're right. But fact is there is no one inpedendent scientific source comparing all the frames on the market, and it probably will never be one done and publicised. Sure there will be a magazine like Tour doing a comparison of the most popular frames once every few years, but this data become obsolute quickly, and their samples only include the biggest brands (eg, Specialized, Giant, Cervelo, Cannondale) and leave out a lot of others.

So given this lack of quality data in the fringe world that cycling, resort to a place such as RBR is still better than nothing.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

tvad said:


> Nonsense. Team Sky Pinarello Dogma 65.1 bikes are equipped with Shimano.
> 
> Have you ever gone on the official Pinarello website? Take a look at the photos of the Dogma 65.1. It's built with Dura Ace.



yes I know Sky ride Shimano Di2. Sky riders are paid to ride that, they have no choice. In the real world, I ride with my nagging buddies in group rides. This is my reality, not Sky. And furthermore, a 65.1 frame is gonna put a lot of hurt on me, so much hurtin that even thinking about getting one is nonsense.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

Trek_5200 said:


> You are confusing marketing with real life. Pinarello tries to play up the italian aspect of the brand despite having the frames manufactured in asia. They do this by exaggerating the italian pronounciations in the ads "pinarello" , "ondo" and of course using campy compoments in the ads adds to that. In the real world lots of people outfit these bikes with shimano, and more of those people use ultegra than dura ace, which is shimano's solution for extracting more money from those that will spend it.


yes I'm well aware of the Italian mystique, the image, the marketing. My first "high end" bike was an Italian bike Casati back in the 90s, bought it for over $3000 (in 90s- money) back when I was college freshman because of the allure of the Italian brand's mystique. So I'm aware of marketing.

but still not getting a Dogma for what is essentially my "bomb the canyons" bike and some fast industrial-park hammerfest. Money is an issue. $1500 is about as much as I wanna spend, maybe a bit more if I had to. But that's it!


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

aclinjury said:


> yes I know Sky ride Shimano Di2. Sky riders are paid to ride that, they have no choice. In the real world, I ride with my nagging buddies in group rides. This is my reality, not Sky. And furthermore, a 65.1 frame is gonna put a lot of hurt on me, so much hurtin that even thinking about getting one is nonsense.


You ignored the fact that Pinarello shows the 65.1 model built with Dura Ace on the company website.

You should ignore your idiot riding buddies and grow thicker skin. When you can ride off the front, your friends may nag you, but it will only be because they can't beat you on the bike.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

here are a number of criteria that I'm looking at when looking for a stiff frame

1) bottom bracket area should be stout, big in dimention, and/or heavily reinforced. BB30 allows for big downtube and chaistays

2) downtube should be strong

3) headtube should be strong (eg., tapered)

a lot of these "SL" (superlight) frames have these features, my issue with many of these "SL" frames out there is that their walls are too thin, and too thin a wall makes a frame not absorb shock as well compared to when mass is used (all else being equal, of course). I will gladly accept 300-400 grams more of carbon fiber material into a frame in order to make the walls thicker and stout. I do not like the tinny feeling of a lot of these "SL" frames. I like a frame that when I've spotted a crack up ahead, I know the frame will absorb the shock with a resounding "subtle thump",... rather then me bracing my body for the eventual shock that will resonate up my legs and hands of these many "SL" frames.

Now there will be folks will theorize that a frame designer can manipulate a frame geometry and/or carbon layup to give exceptional *stiffness*, *lightness*, and *suppleness (as in shock absorption).* Of course, this is like the holygrail of carbon frame design, and honestly I have not ridden an "SL"-type frame on the market that encompass all 3 criteria. So I say to myself, if I can't get all 3, then at least I will get 1 criteria that matters most to me in the canyons, and that is stiffness.. not so much becaues I have tremendous power to flex a frame, but more for stability when cornering.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

tvad said:


> You ignored the fact that Pinarello shows the 65.1 model built with Dura Ace on the company website.
> 
> You should ignore your idiot riding buddies and grow thicker skin. When you can ride off the front, your friends may nag you, but it will only be because they can't beat you on the bike.


yes you're correct. At my age, I could choose (and have chosen) to ignore lots of things (in life) much more pressing than a bicycle frame. Ignoring my buddies would be absolutely not an issue for me. And I will occasionally ride my steel 1990s Casati with them just to hear them ask me silly quesitons, calling me old-man, old-school. It's all fun for me. But in this case, I have chosen to let them bag on me, and will allow them to influence me with their peer pressure. In other words, I have chosen to be part of a social group and will accept what comes with it.

but let's not forget that a 65.1 frame is not chump change either!


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

aclinjury said:


> yes you're correct. At my age, I could choose (and have chosen) to ignore lots of things (in life) much more pressing than a bicycle frame. Ignoring my buddies would be absolutely not an issue for me. And I will occasionally ride my steel 1990s Casati with them just to hear them ask me silly quesitons, calling me old-man, old-school. It's all fun for me. But in this case, I have chosen to let them bag on me, and will allow them to influence me with their peer pressure. In other words, I have chosen to be part of a social group and will accept what comes with it.


I can't debate that. I remember a few years ago when some of the guys in a riding group were teasing me about my hairy legs. I caved to the pressure and shaved. For nearly three years, I kept my legs shaved and endured the hassle and incessant itching caused by shaving. Then, an injury kept me off the bike for several months and I stopped shaving. Boy, has not shaving been a happy bonus to having an injury!

Yes, I understand conforming to fit with the group. Thanks for making me smile this morning.


----------



## Donn12 (Apr 10, 2012)

you need to try a dogma out somehow and then get the cheapest frame you can. Maybe used, maybe a 60.0 dogma 2. then put the grouppo and wheels that you already own on it and you will have an incredible machine. Could be a little lighter if you do a 60.0 but who cares - it is incredible. you could always upgrade components later. I tried a lot of bikes out. The dogma has by far the best ride, handling and stiff feel of anything I tried out. BY a mile!


----------



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

Donn12 said:


> you need to try a dogma out somehow and then get the cheapest frame you can. Maybe used, maybe a 60.0 dogma 2. then put the grouppo and wheels that you already own on it and you will have an incredible machine. Could be a little lighter if you do a 60.0 but who cares - it is incredible. you could always upgrade components later. I tried a lot of bikes out. The dogma has by far the best ride, handling and stiff feel of anything I tried out. BY a mile!



Parlee z5 is better and less expensive, and the older ones are discounted


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

willieboy said:


> BH Ultralight is worth a look


have not heard of BH until now. That's one light frame. 750g (presumably for a medium) is ridiculous. The lightweight (lack of wall thickness) has got to affect its impact resistance.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

Trek_5200 said:


> Parlee z5 is better and less expensive, and the older ones are discounted


How is the Z5 better then the Doggie? Would like to hear some details. The Dogma is one hulluva flat and canyon-bombing bike, so for you to say the Z5 is better, this intrigues me a bit. (The knock on the Doggie has always been its weight, but who cares).


----------



## willieboy (Nov 27, 2010)

aclinjury said:


> have not heard of BH until now. That's one light frame. 750g (presumably for a medium) is ridiculous. The lightweight (lack of wall thickness) has got to affect its impact resistance.


Hopefully I won't find out. I pick the new BH up today. Full Campy SR11 and Hed 4 wheels. Should be about 14 pounds. Will be a fun ride I'm sure. Oh, I think stiff too


----------



## Donn12 (Apr 10, 2012)

aclinjury said:


> have not heard of BH until now. That's one light frame. 750g (presumably for a medium) is ridiculous. The lightweight (lack of wall thickness) has got to affect its impact resistance.



I tried a Cervelo R5 out and it was light but felt more fragile and brittle than I wanted. I was dead set on a light bike until that test and now dont care. My bike in size 57 with SR EPS and zipp 303s comes in at just under 16lbs


----------



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

aclinjury said:


> How is the Z5 better then the Doggie? Would like to hear some details. The Dogma is one hulluva flat and canyon-bombing bike, so for you to say the Z5 is better, this intrigues me a bit. (The knock on the Doggie has always been its weight, but who cares).


It weights 1.65 pounds if that's what you are into. It's a very good ride. Parlee's are known as good race bikes. On the higher end models, z3,z1,z0 they'll dial the frame in for you to empasize one trait over another. z5 is more stock, but one of the best there is. Rides are subjective, since you are not familiar with them, suggest you try one out.


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

Is the goal here stiffness over everything else?

Stiffness is measurable and quantifiable (if one can locate all the data...a difficult task).

"Better" is subjective and not measurable.


----------



## redondoaveb (Jan 16, 2011)

aclinjury said:


> did you have to cut the seatmast down to make the frame fit you?
> 
> As for tires, I mainly want 25c to make it last longer, particularly the rear. I actually am thinking of running a harder tire in the rear (eg, 25c Conti GP4000) and a softer and narrorer tire up front (eg, 23c Vittoria). It doesn't make sense to me to use the same tires for front and rear when the demands of the front and rear are different. Motorcycles don't run the same tires front and rear, and I don't believe a racing bicycle should either.
> 
> As for steering, yeah tire size will affect it a bit. But the frame geometry (eg, rake, wheelbase, head angle) will affect steering much more than the difference between a 23c and 25c. My old Casati racing steel bike from the 90s steer quicker than most of the modern racing carbon bikes. The reason is because the Casati has a steep head angle, and short wheelbase (kinda like a track bike), but it's a twitchy bike and sometimes you can oversteer it if you flick it too hard in fast corner. I wish the modern carbon bikes would have shorter chainstays!


I had to extend my seatpost mast to make it fit. I bought the frame off Ebay. It was advertised as used but was new and never built up. The seatpost mast and steerer tube had been cut but I got the dimensions from the seller and found out with a 30mm Ridley seatpost extender, the bike fit me perfectly.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

I've posted a link before about some data. Here's another from Velocite's site that covers head tube stiffness, bottom bracket stiffness, and stiffness to weight. Their magnum comes out stiffer by a lot over frames in Tour's dataset. Velonews tested the Noah and it was stiffer than the other aero frames they measured it against, but extrapolating from their data, it would not be as stiff as the magnus. Also, the Noah does poorly in other quantifiable metrics, such as aero. It's also heavy.



About frame stiffness - what is stiff? | Velocite Bikes blog, news and updates



tvad said:


> Is the goal here stiffness over everything else?
> 
> Stiffness is measurable and quantifiable (if one can locate all the data...a difficult task).
> 
> "Better" is subjective and not measurable.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

redondoaveb said:


> I had to extend my seatpost mast to make it fit. I bought the frame off Ebay. It was advertised as used but was new and never built up. The seatpost mast and steerer tube had been cut but I got the dimensions from the seller and found out with a 30mm Ridley seatpost extender, the bike fit me perfectly.


thanks for the input


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

stevesbike said:


> I've posted a link before about some data. Here's another from Velocite's site that covers head tube stiffness, bottom bracket stiffness, and stiffness to weight.
> About frame stiffness - what is stiff? | Velocite Bikes blog, news and updates


That's a good reference, although notable for its omission of Pinarello. Also, it appears Velocite bikes are not distributed in the USA (from looking at the Velocite website).

Perhaps the query should be refined to the stiffest frame available in the USA (I'm assuming, perhaps incorrectly, that the OP is in the USA).

It would appear the Specialized Tarmac SL3 and Cervelo R5 CA are the stiffest frames in the test that are available in the USA. Perhaps a search for a used version of one of these would be a good start (considering either an outdated model or cost).


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

stevesbike said:


> I've posted a link before about some data. Here's another from Velocite's site that covers head tube stiffness, bottom bracket stiffness, and stiffness to weight. Their magnum comes out stiffer by a lot over frames in Tour's dataset. Velonews tested the Noah and it was stiffer than the other aero frames they measured it against, but extrapolating from their data, it would not be as stiff as the magnus. Also, the Noah does poorly in other quantifiable metrics, such as aero. It's also heavy.
> 
> 
> 
> About frame stiffness - what is stiff? | Velocite Bikes blog, news and updates


 
the Velocite Magnus looks stiff alright with data to back it up

Do you happen to know anything about the Neil Pryde Bura bike and how it might stack up? (you seem to know a lot about frames)


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

tvad said:


> That's a good reference, although notable for its omission of Pinarello. Also, it appears Velocite bikes are not distributed in the USA (from looking at the Velocite website).
> 
> Perhaps the query should be refined to the stiffest frame available in the USA (I'm assuming, perhaps incorrectly, that the OP is in the USA).


I'm in the US alright. But I'm not aversed to ording bike stuff from Asia and Europe, provided that I can use a credit card.

edit:

I'm also curious as to why the Pina Dogma/2/60.5 weren't included. Did Pina not provide a test frame? Did Pina know something that we don't? Or did Pina not play nice with Tour? hmm.


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

aclinjury said:


> I'm in the US alright. But I'm not aversed to ording bike stuff from Asia and Europe, provided that I can use a credit card.


No worries about warranty?


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

tvad said:


> No worries about warranty?


Warranty is definitely something I'd need to consider. That was why I did not immediately jump with enthusiam to Stevesbikes' earlier post about the Velocite Magnus. The Magnus stiff alright. But at $2000 usd a pop for frame, I would like to get something from a US seller, using a credit card that I know will try to be on my side should sh*t goes wrong. Velocite does not have a US seller, and I question my cc company's ability to come to my rescue against a non-US seller.

I just re-checked Velocite webiste. Of particular note on warranty is this.
Velocite lists (as a feature) the warranty for their "Selene" frame (which is 7005 aluminum) as "lifetime". Yet, they don't list any warranty for the Magnus frame, which makes me think Magnus doesn't get lifetime warranty. But why should a carbon frame with high stiffness and assumingly well built (or even over-built) not get at least the same warranty as the aluminum? Does Velocite know something about the longevity of the Magnus that we don't? Perhaps I'm over analyzing.

However, I don't doubt the stiffness of the frame. BikeRadar puts a 57cm frame at almost 1200g, and fork at 360g. This is certainly no "SL"-type frame, and I actually welcome the weight for what I'm looking for.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

And here is an article on the Magnus I've found

Velocite Magnus 2.0 - First rid review - BikeRadar

Particularly, I like this part of the review...



> On the road we wouldn’t go so far as to say that the Magnus is a comfort bike – it’s very much a pro-level race rig. What is impressive, though, is how well the bike deals with coarse surfaces, potholes and pock-marked roads. Some light carbon frames chatter and resonate through the bar and saddle but the Magnus kills road buzz with a solid thump – something we really like. As a result, you always feel a connection to the road and it’s easy to feel the level of grip when pushing hard. Believe us, you really will want to.


Like I said earlier, I'm partial to a frame using a bit more material to make it stiff and at the same time dampen out the "road noise"... over a light frame with thin walls send resonance up my legs and hands when going over cracks and bumps at high speed.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

stevesbike said:


> Also, the Noah does poorly in other quantifiable metrics, such as aero. It's also heavy.



Stevesbike, 
based on the published weight of the Magnus and Noah, I'd say they are in the same league. But like I said, weight doesn't matter to me.


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

aclinjury said:


> And here is an article on the Magnus I've found
> 
> Velocite Magnus 2.0 - First rid review - BikeRadar
> 
> ...


The quote from the Velocite Magnus 2.0 review could have been lifted from a Dogma 2 review. I'm not saying it was. I'm saying the attributes they describe could also apply to a Dogma 2 - (and have been in Dogma 2 reviews).


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

seriously, Competitive needs to stock the Magnus. I'd be all over the size xs frame in a Competitive's year end clearance! Imagine $1000 for the Magnus with Competive kickass warranty. No brainer here!


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

aclinjury said:


> seriously, Competitive needs to stock the Magnus. I'd be all over the size xs frame in a Competitive's year end clearance! Imagine $1000 for the Magnus with Competive kickass warranty. No brainer here!


Maybe the reality is your desires don't align with your resources, and you need to adjust one or the other.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

I just shot an email to Velocite concerning their warranty and got a reply from the CEO. This may go somewhere!


----------



## Cinelli 82220 (Dec 2, 2010)

Waspinator said:


> 2. Do you honestly think anyone has taken each road frame, put them on machines to flex them, and recorded the various numbers indicating stiffness?


I bet Giant, Merida(Specialized), Trek and most other large makers/designers do that with every frame they can get their hands on. 

It is annoying if not outright dishonest that Specialized and Cervelo print such absolute garbage and bogus engineering in their ads. Things like "fuselage" weight, instead of absolute frame weight. And expressions of stiffness to weight instead of absolute measurements of degrees of deflection per measure of weight applied at the bottom bracket as per the test described by Fireform.


----------



## Cinelli 82220 (Dec 2, 2010)

tvad said:


> You ignored the fact that Pinarello shows the 65.1 model built with Dura Ace on the company website.


When they launched it they had a pic of a bike with Shimano Di2 levers and a Campagnolo group.

So what message were they sending with that pic?

Trying to appeal to both the Shimano camp and the Campagnolo camp?


----------



## Cinelli 82220 (Dec 2, 2010)

Donn12 said:


> I tried a Cervelo R5 out and it was light but felt more fragile and brittle than I wanted.


Exactly! Piece of junk compared to my Dogma.
But one man's "stiff" is another's "dead". One man's "comfortable" is someone else's "noodle".


----------



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

aclinjury said:


> Would like to know what is the stiffest carbon frame on the market right now that is easily available. I'm looking at the Ridley Noah Pro frame right now, but is there an even stiffer one?
> 
> I don't care about comfort nor weight. I want all out stiffness at all cost.


Why? What's the point?


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

Trek_5200 said:


> Why? What's the point?


Canyon bombing. When in doubt, err on the stiff side of things.


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

aclinjury said:


> Canyon bombing. When in doubt, err on the stiff side of things.


You've been around long enough to recall steel frames, yes? Plenty of canyon bombing on steel frames back in the day. I'd be surprised if the times were slower than today.

Also, you'll notice the best descenders in the world do not necessarily ride the stiffest frames...even within the same manufacturer's family of frames.

I think descending has more to do with rider skill than it does with frame stiffness...but that's just my opinion...and I'm no canyon bomber, although I do descend mountains and canyons.


----------



## TehYoyo (Sep 16, 2012)

Giant Bicycles tested a bunch of frames that they bought off the shelf.

Results are here:
https://www.giant-bicycles.com/backoffice/_upload_au/WinWithGiant–RoadFrameTestData–FINAL.pdf

They say it's not biased, but I'm inclined to believe that they only tested stiffness in places they knew they would come out ahead.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

TehYoyo said:


> Giant Bicycles tested a bunch of frames that they bought off the shelf.
> 
> Results are here:
> https://www.giant-bicycles.com/backoffice/_upload_au/WinWithGiant–RoadFrameTestData–FINAL.pdf
> ...


Their data don't match with that of Tour magazine. Who's telling the truth?


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

tvad said:


> You've been around long enough to recall steel frames, yes? Plenty of canyon bombing on steel frames back in the day. I'd be surprised if the times were slower than today.
> 
> Also, you'll notice the best descenders in the world do not necessarily ride the stiffest frames...even within the same manufacturer's family of frames.
> 
> I think descending has more to do with rider skill than it does with frame stiffness...but that's just my opinion...and I'm no canyon bomber, although I do descend mountains and canyons.


Progress. You cannot deny that progress exists. And if it does, and you refuse to use it, then you're called a retrogrouch. Do you ride a carbon bike? Chances are you do. Why don't you ride an aluminum one then? It does 95% of what a carbon bike does, at 1/3 the price.


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

aclinjury said:


> Progress. You cannot deny that progress exists. And if it does, and you refuse to use it, then you're called a retrogrouch.


You're discussing peer pressure here, not specific benefits (or lack thereof) of one frame material over another. 



aclinjury said:


> Do you ride a carbon bike? Chances are you do. Why don't you ride an aluminum one then? It does 95% of what a carbon bike does, at 1/3 the price.


Yes, I ride a carbon bike, as do you. I do so because it offers a more compliant ride than an aluminum bike. 

Are you now explaining your desire to purchase the "stiffest" carbon frame to avoid being called a retrogrouch by your cycling buddies? I'm confused.

FWIW...Peloton Magazine tests downhill times, and the Pinarello Dogma 2 65.1 posted the fastest time they'd ever tested. The primary explanation provided is the smaller head tube of the Dogma 2 65.1, resulting in a more aero rider position. Never was frame stiffness mentioned as a reason for faster downhill times.


----------



## r1lee (Jul 22, 2012)

aclinjury said:


> Their data don't match with that of Tour magazine. Who's telling the truth?


How was the tests done? I think in the video I posted on one of the tests, something like the steering stiffness. I think giant states in their test they use the standard fork that comes with the bike, whereas industry tests uses a metal bar.

But whatever, manufacturers will always publish what is best for their bikes.


----------



## r1lee (Jul 22, 2012)

aclinjury said:


> These are stiff for their weight, but not sure about outright.
> 
> Giant also has their new Propel. I wonder who the Propel compares to the TCR. My bet is the Propel might be stiffer since Giant tout the Propel as the sprinter's bike (Giant marketing even took a public stab at the Specialized Venge when they rolled out their Propel! gotta love Giant.)


I rode the TCR advanced sl3 and now the propel advanced sl1. No contest the TCR is way stiffer then the propel. Giant even stated that the propel is stiff and overall the stiffest of the aero frames when you combine steering and bottom bracket (they do not finish first in either category in their testing, 2nd and 3rd I think).


Found it, a couple pages down.
http://www.tealsport.com/_upload/showcases//2013/MY14_Propel_Test_Results.pdf


----------



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

tvad said:


> You're discussing peer pressure here, not specific benefits (or lack thereof) of one frame material over another.
> 
> 
> Yes, I ride a carbon bike, as do you. I do so because it offers a more compliant ride than an aluminum bike.
> ...


And Motor Trend rated the Ford Mustang higher than the Chevy Camaro...


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

aclinjury said:


> *Canyon bombing.* When in doubt, err on the stiff side of things.


I think you're taking the wrong approach here and you should be thinking more about geometry (for its' impact on handling and weight distribution).

I'd think a frame maker who is designing a no holds barred stiff frame is doing so with sprinting in mind and it will likely to have geometry to match a sprinter. This probably isn't the geo best for twisting down a mountain at 50. It might be on the twitchy side relative to what somone bombing down a canyon would want. Also, if the roads aren't really smooth the extra road chatter from and ultra-stiff frame will not be good.

Stiff enough is stiff enough. If you're not flexing the frame around corners any 'extra' stiffness isn't going to do you any good. Any decent frame won't flex enough to have a negative impact on boming down canyons (unless you're really heavy) and any perceived flex is probably from the wheels anyway.


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

Jay Strongbow said:


> I think you're taking the wrong approach here and you should be thinking more about geometry (for its' impact on handling and weight distribution).


That was essentially the conclusion drawn by "Peloton" in their downhill tests. Head tube length (aero position), front-center spec (quick handling), and trail spec (power transfer) all contributed to the best descending bikes.


----------



## Keoki (Feb 13, 2012)

You should ride the Fuji SST. It's like driving a car with coilovers set to zero rebound. The SST is on the heavier side in regards to weight compared to it's competitors.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

Keoki said:


> You should ride the Fuji SST. It's like driving a car with coilovers set to zero rebound. The SST is on the heavier side in regards to weight compared to it's competitors.


I've been looking for a Fuji SST 1.0 frame in size xs or 50cm, and it's not easy to find one. There were stiff frames alright. In fact, this frame was on my top priority list to get, but like I mentioned, not easy to find in my size (and color, matte black).

Unfortunately, the last year Fuji made these SST 1.0 was in 2011. Since 2012, Fuji has changed to the SST 1.1, and with the SST 1.1 comes thinner seatstays, and also lighter frame weight. I don't want thinner seatstays and I don't want lighter frame weight in exchange for stiffness. But I guess the market for "high end" carbon race bike folks all want weightweenie frame and Fuji followed the trend with their SST 1.1.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

Jay Strongbow said:


> I think you're taking the wrong approach here and you should be thinking more about geometry (for its' impact on handling and weight distribution).
> 
> I'd think a frame maker who is designing a no holds barred stiff frame is doing so with sprinting in mind and it will likely to have geometry to match a sprinter. This probably isn't the geo best for twisting down a mountain at 50. It might be on the twitchy side relative to what somone bombing down a canyon would want. Also, if the roads aren't really smooth the extra road chatter from and ultra-stiff frame will not be good.
> 
> Stiff enough is stiff enough. If you're not flexing the frame around corners any 'extra' stiffness isn't going to do you any good. Any decent frame won't flex enough to have a negative impact on boming down canyons (unless you're really heavy) and any perceived flex is probably from the wheels anyway.


frames will always flex, no frame has infinite stiffness. This is not any perceived flex, this is real flex. As this point in the carbon application in the bicycling world, frames have not reached a point where they are too stiff. Not yet IMO.

If you are talking about "comfort", then ok this is a perceived conception and I will not debate what about comfort here because it's totally subjective.

As for geometry, if anything, I think almost all the so called racing frames today from the big brands don't have enough aggressiveness in them. I want to see steeper head angle and/or rake, shorter chainstays, shorter wheelbase... and this is what a proper race bike should be. But no... all the aging folks with inflexible backs but loads of money keep complaining how their race bikes have hurt them... and bike companies listen to the hands that have the money... and slowly but surely race bikes today have become softer and more relaxed.

I always get a little giggle when I hear somebody posting something like ..
"...looking for a new frame, want it light, aggressive, hold speed well, handles well... but allows all day comfort". There is always that "all day comfort" kicker at the end. Ugh... a proper race craft IMO should always be steep (as in angles) and short (as in short wheelbase, short chainstays). 

If I want a comfortable century bike, then I would get a titanium bike. And in fact, I do have such in the form of a Serotta Ottrott.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

well guys thank you for all your inputs. Thank you for all the technical literature and links.

At this point, I have narrowed my search down to 2 frames, the Fuji SST 1.0 and the Velocite Magnus. I'm still looking for empiracle on the Fuji SST, but cannot find any on the interwebz. I know the SST is a stiff bike, and now I have found one in my size (and $800 cheaper than the Magnus)...

but like I said, I would like to see data on the SST before making a final decision.

One thing I like about the Magnus is its shorter chainstays compared to the SST (405mm vs. 410mm). But the Magnus has an overall longer wheelbase than the SST. So this means that the Magnus has a longer front, meaning it's a bike designed to ridden aggressively, putting your body down low and toward the front. This is similar to what Peter Sagan does with his custom Cannondale Evo (not the retail store Evo).

another thing i like about the Magnus is that it's Di2 and mechanical compatible. 
And it's recessed seatpost clamp is trick stuff!! Nice.
The Magnus designers certainly have put a lot of thought into designing that bike that's for sure.

But the SST has a lot going for it too. $800 cheaper, and US-based seller.

decision, decision

BTW, I've checked into the pricing of the Pinarello Dogma 60.1 and 65.1. Let's not go there. For the price of a 60.1 frame (neverming 65.1), I can get a whole bike built using either the Magnus or SST frame. Needless to say, I won't be considering the Doggie.


----------



## Lelandjt (Sep 11, 2008)

Did you read the frame stiffness vs wheel stiffness thread? Get any of these stiffish frames and put 38-50mm deep, 23-25mm wide wheels with 24frt/28rr 2x spokes on it.


----------



## willieboy (Nov 27, 2010)

Lelandjt said:


> Did you read the frame stiffness vs wheel stiffness thread? Get any of these stiffish frames and put 38-50mm deep, 23-25mm wide wheels with 24frt/28rr 2x spokes on it.


Something like this ?


----------



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

Lelandjt said:


> Did you read the frame stiffness vs wheel stiffness thread? Get any of these stiffish frames and put 38-50mm deep, 23-25mm wide wheels with 24frt/28rr 2x spokes on it.


I just put mavic krysium elites on my old trek 5200 replacing the rolf prima comps. The bike is now stiffer. Be careful where you attribute stiffness from? I suspect what we attribute to frame stiffness actually comes from the wheels and the bottom bracket.


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

Trek_5200 said:


> I suspect what we attribute to frame stiffness actually comes from the wheels and the bottom bracket.


Wheels stiffness does play a role, for sure.

This discussion of frame stiffness analyzes data from Tour Magazine's testing of 25 frames. I think the author, though biased toward his company's frames, does a good job explaining the results.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

I plan to run the stiffest 50mm deep 23mm wide carbon wheelset I can find and afford. I'm going all-out-stiffness on this bike. I already have a titanium-carbon Ottrott bike as my "old man" bike. This one is going to be about stiffness and aggression.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

Trek_5200 said:


> I just put mavic krysium elites on my old trek 5200 replacing the rolf prima comps. The bike is now stiffer. Be careful where you attribute stiffness from? I suspect what we attribute to frame stiffness actually comes from the wheels and the bottom bracket.


Bottom bracket stiff is good for powering up a hill. But frame stiffness (torsion) comes into play when you corner hard, with the bike being laid sideway. With a noodly frame, the front end will drift, the bike will wiggle, killing all confidence. In both situations, i.e., powering up a hill and cornering hard, you want the wheels to be as stiff as possible. So far, I have not found a frame nor wheelset combination so stiff that makes me say "boy, this is too stiff for me, I want something softer". Not yet.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

willieboy said:


> Something like this ?
> View attachment 289619


Nice. How does it ride?


----------



## willieboy (Nov 27, 2010)

aclinjury said:


> Nice.  How does it ride?


I just finished it yesterday morning. Only had time for 32 miles of riding and mostly climbing. It's a far cry from my normal rider. A Lynskey R230 which I love everything about. The BH is as advertised. Light, stiff, handles very well and is a pure race machine. Descends on rails. It's not uncomfortable but I'm surely feeling more of the road. When you put the power to it, it responds nicely. I guess that's the stiff part  Not sure I will keep the Hed wheels on it but for now it's good. They really are great wheels at speed. The bike came in at 14.9 pounds as shown including pedals, cages and Garmin Edge 800. Plenty light and 2.3 pounds lighter than the Lynskey. Still waiting on the seat post to be complete. Can't fault it for anything yet but as I said, only one ride.


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

aclinjury said:


> I just shot an email to Velocite concerning their warranty and got a reply from the CEO. This may go somewhere!


Are you aware Velocite has discounted Magnus 2.0 frames on special in sizes XS & S?


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

tvad said:


> Are you aware Velocite has discounted Magnus 2.0 frames on special in sizes XS & S?


yeah, but the discount price is very insignificant (compared to what you would normally see from guys like Competitive this time of year). You were talking about the Magnus 2.0 complete bike right (that's what I saw)? and not just the frame right?

I asked the CEO (Victor) if I could get a discount on just the Magnus frame, and he said he couldn't. He reason that Magnus basically takes more resources (time, labor, skill, R&D) to make than the other big brands' top-of-the-line frame. He said that because his company is small, he can absorb the cost which is reflected in the price of the frame. And I don't doubt Victor because he's located in Taiwan, a major hub of cycling manufacturing, so he knows what is and what is not when it comes to offering customer value while still has to make a profit.

Furthermore, if I decide to get the Magnus frame plus their RT50 carbon tubeless wheelset, I will be given a nice discount. Their RT50 50mm deep carbon tubeless wheelset is something I have alwasy wanted in a deep carbon wheelset, tubeless. So far, his company is the only one making them. On his blog, he said Zipp has recently purchased a pair of their RT50. Hmm... what is Zipp doing??

I'm a little excited about all this. I like the direction of his top end "race" product. It's truely a race product, where stiffness is given priority over weight and comfort. This is not to say they're not improving their product by making them lighter and more comfortable, but they don't want to compromise on stiffness.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

I ask the CEO of Velocite (Victor) about the stiffness of the Fuji SST 1.0 and the Pinarello Dogma and how these would stack up against the Magnus. And here's what I got back, summary:

Magnus is stiffer than the Pinarello Prince, no comparison. Regarding the Dogma, he can't say because there is no data available for the Dogma. So that's that.

Regarding the SST 1.0. He has no data on the SST. But he also said no comparison here too. Here is an anedoctal mini review from Lee Rodgers (a pro rider for team Fuji Asia, who has ridden the SST) has to say about the Magnus (1st edition) in 2010:

Velocite Magnus review: Cyclingnewsasia.com and Cyclingtime.com tech review | Velocite Bikes blog, news and updates

The Magnus today is in its 3rd edition and has been stiffen up a bit more (and also refined a bit more! but it's still a racing bike, not a roubaix!).

Victor concede that the review of Lee Rodgers is anedoctal and not actual data, but take it for what it's worth. Lee Rodgers does not ride for Velocite. Lee Rodgers is an editor of cyclingtime (big cycling website) and runs his own site called Crankpunk.com. This is to show that Lee Rodgers has no vested interested in promoting the Magnus. So, that's that.

At this point, I think I have settled down on the Magnus. I like the stiffness, I like the racy compact geometry compared to today's race bike (although race bikes of the bygone era had even racier geometry, ie., shorter chainstays, shorter wheelbase, steeper head angle). 

And if thre's anything I would want more from the Magnus, it would be exactly the aforementioned, a tad shorter chainstays, a tad shorter wheelbase, steeper head angle. But hey, then I'd have a totally "track" bike??? lol. I'll just keep my mouth shut and let the Velocite engineers do their thing since they know more than me.

I like this Velocite company. They seem to be made of small team engineers, but focused engineers, who want to develop focused products, unhindered by the "marketing guys". They don't need the marketing guys to tell them what the "consumer research" tell them a product should be. And IMO, usually focused company makes better, focused products.


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

aclinjury said:


> yeah, but the discount price is very insignificant (compared to what you would normally see from guys like Competitive this time of year). You were talking about the Magnus 2.0 complete bike right (that's what I saw)? and not just the frame right?


No, I was referring to the Magnus 2nd Generation frame only (listed in the "Specials" section), which is discounted 27%, and selling for $1584 (original MSRP $2184)...free shipping to USA.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

tvad said:


> No, I was referring to the Magnus 2nd Generation frame only (listed in the "Specials" section), which is discounted 27%, and selling for $1584 (original MSRP $2184)...free shipping to USA.


ah didn't see that! Thanks. I'll see what sort of deal I can get now.
(2nd gen. frame is 5% (~50g) heavier than 3rd gen., which means nothing to me)


----------

