# Cannondale vs. Trek vs. Specialized- who makes best carbon layup?



## jwk

I was just wondering what you all thought of the manufacturer's and who makes the best carbon fiber frames. I would tend to think Specialized and Trek would be pretty even and Cannondale for some reason seems behind the other two.


----------



## lwrncc

I'll try to make to make this short. If you have the impression that Cannondale is second to Trek or Specialized, it just means the latter's marketing department was better. 

With regards to carbon layup, it is too difficult to compare. Sure there are stiffness and weight measurements, but those numbers don't say how the frame rides. Cannondale's new EVO has the best stiffness to weight ratio currently, and also offers the lightest top end frame compared to the other two. They also have special Japanese military carbon, while Trek has their space carbon for the top model. Still, unless you were a carbon engineer and had access to the designs, no one will know who has the most advanced layup. Ride qualities are subjective, therefore IMO, the best one is the one that makes you smile when you ride it 

I have an S works Tarmac, an S2 and an Reynolds 753 bike. There was a time when I cared about who had the most advanced/lightest/aero bike, but after much riding, I realized that I prize comfort the most, carbon layup be damned because the steel frame is the most comfortable. Selling the carbon bikes eventually to get titanium.


----------



## lwrncc

Btw, I do remember reading on redkiteprayer (I think) that someone cut open several top end frames and de-laminated them, they said that Cervelo had one of the most sophisticated layups. Grain of salt etc...

Quote:

"What elevated my regard for Cervelo’s work a few years ago came not from anything their PR people told me, not from a big win aboard one of their bikes and certainly not from some bike magazine review. An engineer for one of their competitors had baked apart a frame and told me of the sophisticated layup they were using. That there were places where he’d have loved to know what fiber they were using to achieve the stiffness and strength they managed at the bottom bracket. The frame was too light, too stiff and too strong to make the answer easy or obvious."


----------



## jwk

lwrncc said:


> I'll try to make to make this short. If you have the impression that Cannondale is second to Trek or Specialized, it just means the latter's marketing department was better.
> 
> With regards to carbon layup, it is too difficult to compare. Sure there are stiffness and weight measurements, but those numbers don't say how the frame rides. Cannondale's new EVO has the best stiffness to weight ratio currently, and also offers the lightest top end frame compared to the other two. They also have special Japanese military carbon, while Trek has their space carbon for the top model. Still, unless you were a carbon engineer and had access to the designs, no one will know who has the most advanced layup. Ride qualities are subjective, therefore IMO, the best one is the one that makes you smile when you ride it
> 
> I have an S works Tarmac, an S2 and an Reynolds 753 bike. There was a time when I cared about who had the most advanced/lightest/aero bike, but after much riding, I realized that I prize comfort the most, carbon layup be damned because the steel frame is the most comfortable. Selling the carbon bikes eventually to get titanium.


Thanks for the good info and spot on about marketing. I recently saw on utube a guy running over a carbon fiber cut away of the main downtube of carbon, aluminum, and titanium. Both the carbon fiber and aluminum crushed like a soda can where the titanium did not bend at all


----------



## Ventruck

This thread is serious?


----------



## bigbill

Ventruck said:


> This thread is serious?


Apparently. I think some guy in Taiwan makes the best carbon layup. It just appears in different shapes and decals later on.


----------



## PaxRomana

Invariably, the words "military grade carbon" or "space grade carbon" pop up.

Good grief. Cannondale is great, but their frames are mass-produced wherever in China provides the cheapest cost. It's not like NASA flies the space shuttle there to drop off some carbon.


----------



## lwrncc

PaxRomana said:


> Invariably, the words "military grade carbon" or "space grade carbon" pop up.
> 
> Good grief. Cannondale is great, but their frames are mass-produced wherever in China provides the cheapest cost. It's not like NASA flies the space shuttle there to drop off some carbon.


There was a tone of sarcasm there hence the use of "military grade carbon/space carbon", because I did not want to use the marketing speak. But you leave me no choice , because I do think that the use of the special carbon types has merits... (My post is going to sound like a PR blurp now )

"BallisTec Carbon Technology
Made in Japan, the ballistic carbon fiber used in the Jekyll is military spec, used in anti-ballistic equipment, and Cannondale has to sign off and account for every kilo of fiber. In fact, Cannondale’s Murray Washburn, global product marketing manager, said you could take a hammer and smack the frame hard and there would be no damage. One of their German engineers has even taken a hatchet and hit the downtime and it didn’t break the fibers. The goal with all of this was to create a carbon fiber frame that would remove the doubts and fears of those that say carbon has no place on long travel, all-mountainâ€¦er, Over-Mountainâ€¦ bikes.

By using BallisTec fibers, they’ve creates a carbon frame that’s lighter and stronger than aluminum and more dent resistant than steel."

Same with Trek's NATO limited HexSL/HexSM, I'm no engineer but the better carbon does allow them to make stiffer and lighter frames.

Doesn't matter where the frames are made, the numbers do back up Cannondale's claims about stiffness/weight/compliance. See Tour magazine's latest results. You don't get those numbers without advanced materials and layups. They did make the frame to meet Tour Magazines' standards, also another reason why they did well.

Stolen from WW:

Bike score (overall, aero frame score, frame score
1. Cannondale super six Evo ultimate 1.8, 3.0, 1.5 
1. Storck Fascenario 0.6 1.8, 3.0, 1.5
3. Canyon CF SLX 9.0 LTD 1.9, 4.0. 1,3
4. Cervelo R5 Ca 1.9, 4.0, 1.4
5. Scott Foil Team Issue 2.1, 2.0, 2.1
6. Specialized S-works Venge Mclaren 2.2, 1.0, 2.5

Biggest let-down (for me) is the S-works Mclaren (€15.000)
frame 56cm 1059 gram, fork 364 grams
Very uncomfortable, average torsional stiffness, average weight.
Lowest weight R5Ca 56cm 727 grams
Best overall: Cannondale and Storck
Best comfort: Canyon
Best allround: Scott Foil
Best aerodynamics: Specialized

Also, as what I replied to the OP, these numbers don't show *how the frame rides*, but still there are many people who buy bikes based on these results because it makes them happy, good for them. I know some of you think the OP's question is irrelevant, but this is something crosses the mind of many cycling enthusiasts.

The metrics used above are the only way to measure and rank bikes because "rider impressions" are subjective. It's the best we have.


----------



## lwrncc

jwk said:


> Thanks for the good info and spot on about marketing. I recently saw on utube a guy running over a carbon fiber cut away of the main downtube of carbon, aluminum, and titanium. Both the carbon fiber and aluminum crushed like a soda can where the titanium did not bend at all


That test is kind of useless because carbon is made to resist forces in certain directions. 

There is no way in practice where a bicycle tube is going to face this specific kind of force with the tubes laying nicely flat on the ground, a better test would be the bicycle frames as a whole, fully built up, hitting a lamp post at 45mph ala crash test dummy style, see which frame survives.


----------



## jwk

lwrncc said:


> There was a tone of sarcasm there hence the use of "military grade carbon/space carbon", because I did not want to use the marketing speak. But you leave me no choice , because I do think that the use of the special carbon types has merits... (My post is going to sound like a PR blurp now )
> 
> "BallisTec Carbon Technology
> Made in Japan, the ballistic carbon fiber used in the Jekyll is military spec, used in anti-ballistic equipment, and Cannondale has to sign off and account for every kilo of fiber. In fact, Cannondale’s Murray Washburn, global product marketing manager, said you could take a hammer and smack the frame hard and there would be no damage. One of their German engineers has even taken a hatchet and hit the downtime and it didn’t break the fibers. The goal with all of this was to create a carbon fiber frame that would remove the doubts and fears of those that say carbon has no place on long travel, all-mountainâ€¦er, Over-Mountainâ€¦ bikes.
> 
> By using BallisTec fibers, they’ve creates a carbon frame that’s lighter and stronger than aluminum and more dent resistant than steel."
> 
> Same with Trek's NATO limited HexSL/HexSM, I'm no engineer but the better carbon does allow them to make stiffer and lighter frames.
> 
> Doesn't matter where the frames are made, the numbers do back up Cannondale's claims about stiffness/weight/compliance. See Tour magazine's latest results. You don't get those numbers without advanced materials and layups. They did make the frame to meet Tour Magazines' standards, also another reason why they did well.
> 
> Stolen from WW:
> 
> Bike score (overall, aero frame score, frame score
> 1. Cannondale super six Evo ultimate 1.8, 3.0, 1.5
> 1. Storck Fascenario 0.6 1.8, 3.0, 1.5
> 3. Canyon CF SLX 9.0 LTD 1.9, 4.0. 1,3
> 4. Cervelo R5 Ca 1.9, 4.0, 1.4
> 5. Scott Foil Team Issue 2.1, 2.0, 2.1
> 6. Specialized S-works Venge Mclaren 2.2, 1.0, 2.5
> 
> Biggest let-down (for me) is the S-works Mclaren (€15.000)
> frame 56cm 1059 gram, fork 364 grams
> Very uncomfortable, average torsional stiffness, average weight.
> Lowest weight R5Ca 56cm 727 grams
> Best overall: Cannondale and Storck
> Best comfort: Canyon
> Best allround: Scott Foil
> Best aerodynamics: Specialized
> 
> Also, as what I replied to the OP, these numbers don't show *how the frame rides*, but still there are many people who buy bikes based on these results because it makes them happy, good for them. I know some of you think the OP's question is irrelevant, but this is something crosses the mind of many cycling enthusiasts.
> 
> The metrics used above are the only way to measure and rank bikes because "rider impressions" are subjective. It's the best we have.


Impressive numbers and I guess Cannondale is not a substandard company after all.


----------



## Rugergundog

Your thread is doomed from the start.

Its my understanding that none, Trek, Cannondale or Specialize produce their own carbon bikes. With that said its my understanding that only Giant produces their own bikes and likely bikes for some of the other companies.

As for "best" carbon lay up. Each company offers a variety of carbon offerings these days. As it goes the lighter the bike and such the more "epoxy" you get and less actual carbon in the mix.

IMHO there is no "best" lay up. Each is different and mostly likely the frame design as much more of an impact than the slight difference in lay up from company to company.


----------



## Cinelli 82220

*I'm calling BS*



lwrncc said:


> One of their German engineers has even taken a hatchet and hit the downtime and it didn’t break the fibers


What kind of girly-man is he? He needs Hans und Franz to pump him up no? Maybe the heaviest thing he lifts is his slide rule?

Give me a hatchet. I GUARANTEE you I can break the fibers in that frame. And so could most people on this forum.

I'm tempted to challenge Cannondale right now, I will go to a local store and buy a frame at random. If I can break it they reimburse me. 

What a steaming pile of ....


----------



## terbennett

PaxRomana said:


> Invariably, the words "military grade carbon" or "space grade carbon" pop up.
> 
> Good grief. Cannondale is great, but their frames are mass-produced wherever in China provides the cheapest cost. It's not like NASA flies the space shuttle there to drop off some carbon.


Not to rain on your parade but Giant is a Taiwanese company that makes carbon parts for many military vehicles around the world.... including some here in the US.


----------



## lwrncc

Cinelli 82220 said:


> What kind of girly-man is he? He needs Hans und Franz to pump him up no? Maybe the heaviest thing he lifts is his slide rule?
> 
> Give me a hatchet. I GUARANTEE you I can break the fibers in that frame. And so could most people on this forum.
> 
> I'm tempted to challenge Cannondale right now, I will go to a local store and buy a frame at random. If I can break it they reimburse me.
> 
> What a steaming pile of ....


I'm sure you could. Good thing the carbon construction from top tier companies are getting pretty tough nowadays... Watch the last section of the Santa Cruz videos, good enough for me, granted it is an mtb frame.

Niner Bikes Fork Hammering - YouTube

Pinkbike Visits The Santa Cruz Test Lab Video - Pinkbike.com


----------



## jwk

lwrncc said:


> I'm sure you could. Good thing the carbon construction from top tier companies are getting pretty tough nowadays... Watch the last section of the Santa Cruz videos, good enough for me, granted it is an mtb frame.
> 
> Niner Bikes Fork Hammering - YouTube
> 
> Pinkbike Visits The Santa Cruz Test Lab Video - Pinkbike.com


After watching this I now realize how silly I was, believing some stone chips on my SRAM S80 wheels could cause it to break. I am impressed how freaking strong carbon fiber is and will never question or doubt it's better than my aluminum frame


----------



## eflayer2

*nearly positive my 2009 S-Works Roubaix*

has the best carbon layup of any bike on the whole planet. I have owned a number of all steel, steel frame/carbon forked bikes, fully carbonated. Not saying anyone has to agree, but of the more than 20 bikes I have owned in the last 10 years, I do enjoy the Roubaix the most. Not the best looking, too many Specialized logos all over the dam thing, but the ride qualities are just the best for me.

it would be cool to actually be able to compare how each of the name brands is manufactured and what things actually look like under the top cosmetic layer, but they got us by the balls on that one.


----------



## JackDaniels

terbennett said:


> Not to rain on your parade but Giant is a Taiwanese company that makes carbon parts for many military vehicles around the world.... including some here in the US.



The main Giant factory used to be in Taichung, Taiwan. While I'm pretty sure that factory is still running, they opened a bigger production facility in mainland China a few years ago. If you visit either of these factories, you will see Trek and Specialized bikes rolling off the line. As well as a few other well known brands.


----------



## Richard

Rugergundog said:


> Its my understanding that none, Trek, Cannondale or Specialize produce their own carbon bikes. With that said its my understanding that only Giant produces their own bikes and likely bikes for some of the other companies.


Your understanding is wrong.

Although more and more of Trek's production has gone to Asia (Giant being their main supplier), manufacturing of the 6 and 6SSL Madones, as well as the top end Speed Concepts, continues to be in Wisconsin. And be price competitive (I can sell you a Project One 6 Series Madone for less than a similarly specced, Chinese made Cervelo.)

Further, until their buyout by a big Canadian holding company, many Cannondales were U.S. made. I will say that they have maintained the integrity of the brand, as current Cannondales are very well made.

Finally, strictly speaking and disregarding some low volume, prototype stuff, Specialized has never "manufactured" their own bikes.


----------



## trailrunner68

JackDaniels said:


> The main Giant factory used to be in Taichung, Taiwan. While I'm pretty sure that factory is still running, they opened a bigger production facility in mainland China a few years ago. If you visit either of these factories, you will see Trek and Specialized bikes rolling off the line. As well as a few other well known brands.


That would be quite a trick since Specialized's frames are manufactured by Merida, which owns a big chunk of Specialized.

The point does stand, though. All the bikes from the big boys are Chinese frames with different decals. It is ridiculous to think that one has a secret technology advantage over the others when they are all made in a handful of factories.


----------



## GFish

trailrunner68 said:


> The point does stand, though. All the bikes from the big boys are Chinese frames with different decals. It is ridiculous to think that one has a secret technology advantage over the others when they are all made in a handful of factories.


Except not all frames look or are built alike. Surly bike manufacturers are designing and specifying the carbon materials and lay-up processes used to build frames specially for them. 

There appears to be more going on then just slapping decals and paint on frames.


----------



## JackDaniels

trailrunner68 said:


> That would be quite a trick since Specialized's frames are manufactured by Merida, which owns a big chunk of Specialized.


I'm almost positive at one point Giant was making specialized bikes, that may have changed in the last few years. Or maybe I'm completely wrong. It's happened before.


----------



## laffeaux

JackDaniels said:


> I'm almost positive at one point Giant was making specialized bikes, that may have changed in the last few years. Or maybe I'm completely wrong. It's happened before.


According to BRAIN, Giant supplied some bikes to Specialized in 2007 and 2008 (they don't have data prior to 2007). Since then they have not.

Source:
Bicycle Retailer and Industry News


----------



## trailrunner68

GFish said:


> Except not all frames look or are built alike. Surly bike manufacturers are designing and specifying the carbon materials and lay-up processes used to build frames specially for them.
> 
> There appears to be more going on then just slapping decals and paint on frames.


What is the real functional difference between the frames of big makers? They all use the same CAD programs, have access to the same carbon, manufacture in the same factories, etc. Heck, a bunch of them are using the same ODMs, which is often the same as the OEM. There are no secrets. No maker's frames are better because they have some secret sauce that the others don't. At this point it is all marketing.


----------



## laffeaux

trailrunner68 said:


> What is the real functional difference between the frames of big makers? They all use the same CAD programs, have access to the same carbon, manufacture in the same factories, etc. Heck, a bunch of them are using the same ODMs, which is often the same as the OEM. There are no secrets. No maker's frames are better because they have some secret sauce that the others don't. At this point it is all marketing.


Hmmm... that's not necessarily true. Think about other projects: companies that make clothes, food, television sets, etc. Companies have access to the same raw materials and may sub-contract to the same company. However that does not mean that one brand of pants fits, looks, and performs like the next brand. Levis may fit you better than Lee jeans, but they're both made of cotton and could be made by the same machine.

Different bikes fit differently, ride differently, and have different features. Most companies design their own frames and have them built to order. The frame is unique to that company. The same sub-contractor will build bikes for others, but they use a different design. The bikes are different.

There are companies that buy frames directly out of a catalog and apply their logo to the frame, but that's not what the larger companies are doing.

The idea that "none are better" means that they all have access to the same tools, workforce, and materials. Some may use those better than others. "Better" means different things to different people. I may value long head tubes, short seat stays, threaded BBs, plenty of tire clearance, and the ability to mount a rack. The next guy might value a super-light frame, stiff BB, and loud graphics. The two of us will not agree on the "best" frame. There are plenty of difference in bikes.


----------



## trailrunner68

laffeaux said:


> Hmmm... that's not necessarily true. Think about other projects: companies that make clothes, food, television sets, etc. Companies have access to the same raw materials and may sub-contract to the same company. However that does not mean that one brand of pants fits, looks, and performs like the next brand. Levis may fit you better than Lee jeans, but they're both made of cotton and could be made by the same machine.
> 
> Different bikes fit differently, ride differently, and have different features. Most companies design their own frames and have them built to order. The frame is unique to that company. The same sub-contractor will build bikes for others, but they use a different design. The bikes are different.
> 
> There are companies that buy frames directly out of a catalog and apply their logo to the frame, but that's not what the larger companies are doing.
> 
> The idea that "none are better" means that they all have access to the same tools, workforce, and materials. Some may use those better than others. "Better" means different things to different people. I may value long head tubes, short seat stays, threaded BBs, plenty of tire clearance, and the ability to mount a rack. The next guy might value a super-light frame, stiff BB, and loud graphics. The two of us will not agree on the "best" frame. There are plenty of difference in bikes.


This thread is not about fit issues or frame geometry. It is about one maker supposedly having better carbon layup than another, which supposedly makes a better frame.


----------



## [email protected]

jwk said:


> Impressive numbers and I guess Cannondale is not a substandard company after all.


In your spec comparison you represent Specialized with the Venge model. That is like comparing Apples and Oranges. The Sworks TARMAC SL4 is the bike you should have used to compare to Evo etc......

Just saying.....


----------



## QuattroCreep

trailrunner68 said:


> This thread is not about fit issues or frame geometry. It is about one maker supposedly having better carbon layup than another, which supposedly makes a better frame.


Fine then it is like saying all steel bikes are the same. When bikes were made of steel everyone had access to the same raw goods. Does not mean they all ride alike, no. 

All companies have access to similar materials and process, but it is how they use them that makes a difference. Layup and carbon choice do make a better frame. Look at the companies that offer a second tier frame that comes from the same mold as their high end model. What changes? The type of carbon and the layup.

Look back 10 years at carbon frames. The goal each year is to have the lightest, stiffest, most buzz canceling, most durable, or what ever is hot at the time frame available. Some company got there first, and they did it with a process or material the others did not have at the time. Yes, the rest of the community learns from that frame and the cycle goes on. To me it seems like a very real question.


----------



## trailrunner68

QuattroCreep said:


> All companies have access to similar materials and process, but it is how they use them that makes a difference. Layup and carbon choice do make a better frame.


Explain how it makes a bit of difference to the end customer. Are you going to tell us that there is any meaningful differences between a Cervelo and a Trek and a Specialized that is discernable by the average punter that uses these frames? Take away the geometry differences and there is not a hairs' width of difference.



QuattroCreep said:


> Look at the companies that offer a second tier frame that comes from the same mold as their high end model. What changes?


The marketing.


----------



## QuattroCreep

trailrunner68 said:


> Explain how it makes a bit of difference to the end customer. Are you going to tell us that there is any meaningful differences between a Cervelo and a Trek and a Specialized that is discernable by the average punter that uses these frames? Take away the geometry differences and there is not a hairs' width of difference.
> 
> The marketing.


Way to address the first to paragraphs and skip the third. By your thinking we have reached the limits of carbon technology. 

Just remember as you roll around on your china direct carbon frame that a number of years ago that frame would have been the top offering from a Trek or Spec. but as new technologies come out they trickle down. You are benefiting from other companies R&D time and money. You may be happy with China direct and don't see the point in getting the latest and greatest or even middle of the road, but your frame is not of the same quality as a top tier frame.

If the average rider would benefit from the latest and greatest frame is a different argument. The question was about layups and do different companies use different layups and carbon types. The answer is yes.


----------



## trailrunner68

QuattroCreep said:


> Just remember as you roll around on your china direct carbon frame that a number of years ago that frame would have been the top offering from a Trek or Spec. but as new technologies come out they trickle down. You are benefiting from other companies R&D time and money. You may be happy with China direct and don't see the point in getting the latest and greatest or even middle of the road, but your frame is not of the same quality as a top tier frame.


What technology? Bike frames are not iPhones. Specialized is not developing carbon "technology." All it does is use technology developed by others and available to everyone else. Giant and Merida are the companies making it possible for Special Ed to make better products.

Nice ad hominem atack, but three of my bikes are made in the U.S. I'll take them any day over frames popped out of a mold in China.



QuattroCreep said:


> If the average rider would benefit from the latest and greatest frame is a different argument. The question was about layups and do different companies use different layups and carbon types. The answer is yes.


And again you failed to address how Cervelo's carbon layup is supposedly better than Trek's or Specialized or anyone else's. What difference does it make to the end customer? It is not whether a rider can benefit. It's whether there is a meaningful difference between the big bike companies, which all manufacture their frames in the same handful of factories. A distinction without a difference is not a distinction.


----------



## Hiro11

I wonder what a "blind taste test" of different lay-ups would reveal. Could anyone actually tell the difference between the same mold using different layups. I'll bet not.

Also, IMO, the final weight of a frame has much more to do with elimination of excess epoxy through careful molding and less to do with the fibers themselves.


----------



## laffeaux

trailrunner68 said:


> It is not whether a rider can benefit. It's whether there is a meaningful difference between the big bike companies, which all manufacture their frames in the same handful of factories. A distinction without a difference is not a distinction.


I still do not understand your argument. There are different ways to lay up frames. Frames can be created with different geo. Frames ride differently. What's your point?

Yes, there are meaningful differences between the bike companies. Is one inherently better than the others? No. Are thy all producing identical products? No. Differences do not have to mean good versus bad, or good versus better. Companies have selected a process that works for them and meets there cost versus quality needs.

If you see no distinction between different frames (of any material) then you're not really looking.


----------



## trailrunner68

laffeaux said:


> I still do not understand your argument. There are different ways to lay up frames. Frames can be created with different geo. Frames ride differently. What's your point?


The point is that the OP seems to think that one big brand may make better carbon frames than another. The third post refers to supposedly more sophisticated carbon layup in Cervelos. I will argue that there is no meaningful difference between the large brand's frames. The big brands are not using secret construction methods that none of the others know about. Each specs a frame with the geometry and construction method that it feels will deliver the desired ride. The frames don't ride differently due to one brand being more sophisticated or "better" than another. It is due to the brand wanting the frame to ride that way, and it could just as easily make it ride like another brand's frames.


----------



## laffeaux

Okay. I agree with your last post.


----------



## albert owen

I put *my* money where my mouth is -IMO there is nothing better than the Giant SL framesets at this moment in time.
BUT, there are some beautiful frames by all makers.


----------



## new2rd

My Specialized Roubaix is a SL2 Fact 8r frame. The 2 from SL2 means thAt it has 2 layers of stealth military grade carbon and 8 random layers of Chinese lead based carbon.


----------



## Camilo

Any question that uses the word "best" is unanswerable and naive. There's no such thing.

Now re-frame the question asking about the differences and you can have a legitimate discussion - you can try to identify actual differences in construction techniques, actual differences in potential ride effects, and then the asker will have some decent information to decide his or her own mix of factors that will be "best" for his/her own needs.

But there's no universal "best", in spite of what Consumer Reports preaches. Everything is subjective, at least as far as what objective characteristics (IF they are indeed objective) are actually important.


----------



## GDTRFB

One theme to these seemingly endless threads which debate "the best frame" is that the Cervelo owners have an air of superiority about them. This is also clearly evident on the road, when I routinely witness Cervelo riders look down their noses at those who ride Specialized, Trek, Cannondale etc. 
The most ironic thing about this is that Cervelo (trying to be Italian?) is just another Taiwanese frame trying to be something else. Yes, Cervelo makes a top-notch bike, but it is still an east Asian product. This is in sharp contrast to a Trek 6.X, which is handmade in the good old USA. Add the ability to customize a 6 series in countless ways, and you have a second-to-none bike that is _yours_. This is what separates Trek from the others.
Specialized has never tried to be anything but a foreign brand. Cannondale is another story, but still makes a great bike.

One of the few bikes that may have a different carbon lay-up process is Wilier, who uses a dampening layer within the carbon layers. But again, although it is a top-quality bike, is really a product of east-Asia, not Italy.

*None of this means that a world-class bike can't be built in Asia*, it's not your dad's "made in China". No bike manufacturer is going to sacrifice quality when building their top line of bikes. 


For the record, I ride a newer Trek Madone manufactured in Taiwan, and an older Trek built here in the USA.
I've also had a Bianchi, made in Italy & a Dawes built in Europe.

I don't know what my next bike will be, but a Trek P1, Specialized SL3, Bianchi & Wilier are all on the radar.


----------

