# That Specialized matte black finish...



## thumper8888 (Apr 7, 2009)

About to take delivery of frame ... saw somewhere someone advocated waxing it, though I'm not sure exactly what that would do... I guess the main concern would be rubs and near-scratches that create, smoother, shiny areas?
anyway, would welcome any thoughts/advice from folks with that matte, "project black" type finish.


----------



## BikerNutz77 (Sep 10, 2011)

I have the '12 Roubaix Pro in the Charcoal Satin/Red comb. I didn't consider waxing it because it has no clearcoat finish. I have waxed my other bike though. It makes cleaning it easier. The sticky residue from your sports drink, perspiration, nasal loogies, etc. Certainly make the surface that much more smoother, maybe even faster in some sort of demonic way.


----------



## thumper8888 (Apr 7, 2009)

It's got a clear coat, but its a matte clear coat rather than a gloss.
This is a pretty common misunderstanding, and is kind of related to the problems people have with clear coats that they think is the actual structural laminate flaking or scratching.

A carbon composite with no UV protectant will yellow inside a few months, and the epoxy that holds the carbon fibers together will begin to chalk up, at least on the surface where UV can get at it.
I have never seen a carbon bike without a protecting finish and it's unlikely a manufacturer would do that. Terms like "naked" finish etc. typically mean that you can see the carbon through the protecting finish.

Also, a small point, many people think that carbon's "natural" finish is matte. It is not. There is no "natural" finish for carbon. The finish is whatever you make the part to have as a surface.
The outer surface is a reflection of the surface of the mold, which can be polished to any standard, or conversely a removable layer of cloth called peel ply can be molded onto the surface and pulled away once the resin kicks, leaving a rough or matte surface. That's useful if you need paint to stick to the outside of the frame or need to glue something to it.
Paint sprayed on or something liked a cable stop glued to a shiny epoxy laminate simply will not stick.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

thumper8888 said:


> It's got a clear coat, but its a matte clear coat rather than a gloss.


Correct. If it were my bike I'd go to the source (Specialized) and submit a question to customer support. 

BTW, in your first post you referred to your matte finish as a "Project Black" type finish. That's not really accurate, because my Project Black Tarmac Pro has a glossy clear coat.

EDIT: Ah, ok. I just saw where the Venge is offered in a matte PB color scheme. _Very_ nice!


----------



## thumper8888 (Apr 7, 2009)

I'd be happy to be corrected, as it would be educational, but my firm impression is that specialized has referred to gloss and matte at different times and on different frames, as Project Black.
If Specialized has not done that, certainly bike owners and enthusiasts have, and frankly it has become a kind of minor pain the butt figuring out from photos on ebay, let alone craigslist, whether a given frame is gloss or not because of this. photos are often not good enough for that to be obvious.

from a vaguely common sense standpoint, Project Black seems like a phrase that better fits the matte thing. Gloss black is common... special projects should have more unusual finishes. But hey, I'm just a former composites guy who now sells words for a living.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

thumper8888 said:


> I'd be happy to be corrected, as it would be educational, but my firm impression is that* specialized has referred to gloss and matte at different times and on different frames, as Project Black.*
> If Specialized has not done that, certainly bike owners and enthusiasts have, and frankly it has become a kind of minor pain the butt figuring out from photos on ebay, let alone craigslist, whether a given frame is gloss or not because of this. photos are often not good enough for that to be obvious.
> 
> from a vaguely common sense standpoint, Project Black seems like a phrase that better fits the matte thing. Gloss black is common... special projects should have more unusual finishes. But hey, I'm just a former composites guy who now sells words for a living.


You're correct. You didn't specify a model, but once I checked Specs Venge website, I updated my initial post offering the same. 

Not sure I share your views on the PB finishes, but as we say here, YMMV.


----------



## thumper8888 (Apr 7, 2009)

Hahahaha, but I bet you agree that its a pain in the butt and that they should be consistent with the names of finishes... especially when one of them is pretty distinctive.
I have nothing against the gloss, though based on experience with hydrodynamics, I'd almost be willing to bet that the matte finish is fractionally, and I mean, like .001 watts at 27 mph, faster becuase it would drag a boundary layer. at higher speeds, like aircraft and car speeds, gloss would be faster.


----------



## BikerNutz77 (Sep 10, 2011)

Ok, I just did a test area on my unpainted and painted surfaces (with a matte finish) with some Meguire's Car Wax (spectacular product I must add). I can tell no difference in look and feel to the surface one waxed. Very are to tell if it makes a difference or not. Maybe my sweat-beads will run off the surface a little faster now.


----------



## thumper8888 (Apr 7, 2009)

BikerNutz77 said:


> Ok, I just did a test area on my unpainted and painted surfaces (with a matte finish) with some Meguire's Car Wax (spectacular product I must add). I can tell no difference in look and feel to the surface one waxed. Very are to tell if it makes a difference or not. Maybe my sweat-beads will run off the surface a little faster now.


And it polished out, not leaving a faintly white mess?
it just seemed to me like the matte would keep you from being able to polish the wax out once it dried... you know what a pain that can be even on a gloss surface on a car.....
thanks for trying that, didnt mean to ask anyone to go and do some actual testing.


----------



## BikerNutz77 (Sep 10, 2011)

thumper8888 said:


> And it polished out, not leaving a faintly white mess?
> it just seemed to me like the matte would keep you from being able to polish the wax out once it dried... you know what a pain that can be even on a gloss surface on a car.....
> thanks for trying that, didnt mean to ask anyone to go and do some actual testing.


It came off fine. No problems. I was wondering about this before you posted anyway, so I figured why not try it now. There really is no polishing per say, it goes on so thin and dries to a powder finish. Wipes off very easily.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

thumper8888 said:


> Hahahaha, but* I bet you agree that its a pain in the butt and that they should be consistent with the names of finishes*... especially when one of them is pretty distinctive.
> I have nothing against the gloss, though based on experience with hydrodynamics, I'd almost be willing to bet that the matte finish is fractionally, and I mean, like .001 watts at 27 mph, faster becuase it would drag a boundary layer. at higher speeds, like aircraft and car speeds, gloss would be faster.


Hey, at least you have a decent website pic to use as a reference. When Spec offered the 2011 Tarmac Pro in Project Black members only knew of it because another member/ dealer posted a pic and provided some details.

Just for its inherent slipperiness, I would think a gloss clear coat would always have an aero edge on matte, and considering Spec offers 2 of the 3 S-Works Venges in gloss, they (apparently) agree. 

FWIW I'll second BikerNutz endorsement of Meguire's Car Wax, but I've only ever used it on gloss (bike) finishes.


----------



## roadworthy (Nov 11, 2011)

I have the same Roubaix Pro framset and color as BikerNutz. The frame is an interesting collage of painted and translucent carbon weave and as mentioned, shot with matte clear coat over the entire frame. My presumption is...in the silver painted areas, matte clear coat is shot over both silver paint and in the unpainted areas of the frame, you can see thru the matte clear coat through the weave. A couple of comments about the frame aesthetic. For those car guys out there, the frame has almost a hotrod or ratrod look to it. Its pretty unique and it has taken me a while to get used to it as all carbon bikes I have owned earlier have been a uniform weave or painted or both with a gloss clear coat. For those that ride or race off road, Easton had a carbon handlebar a while back called the monkeylight that had the same quality...a marble-ized finish without a cosmetic 3K or UT carbon top layer...also shot with matte clear over it that would allow one to peer through the non uniform carbon weave...see below. 

The thing about the Roubaix Pro and Specialized may also apply the same effect on the Tarmac in certain areas of the frame, because the weave isn't uniform and its translucent, the frame changes colors in the areas without paint as the light refracts through the layers. When I first opened the box, I said, oh oh...what is up with the paint job on this frame? Then I determined through talking with different owners, this is by Specialized intent...so I calmed down and accepted it. I believe it also lowers the frame weight by not having the frame covered with a cosmetic and non structural weave to create a uniform appearance.

As to waxing, I highly recommend you do. Any car wax will do. I use Mothers Carnuba but it doesn't matter what you use really. Objective? Easier to remove the dirt off the frame. Matte clear generally doesn't have the same smooth texture of gloss clear coat and as a result has a dirtier look after cleaning. Wax reduces friction and fills the micro pores of the clear coat making the frameset easier to clean...and also adds a measure of UV and weather protection.

Another thing I do. I coat the top tube and a few other areas of the frame with clear protective tape...a mylar tape...likely made by 3M. I buy it from Colorado Cyclist...for those interested its called 'Bike Saver Tape' and I use it on all my bikes. A matte finish looks bad when scratched in particular...unlike a gloss clear which reflects light more and is easier to polish out without looking obvious. So I coat the top tube to prevent scratching. Yes this adds fractional weight to the bike but I am less concerned about inevitable drops of stuff on the top tube or abrasions when leaning the bike etc.
My thoughts...


----------



## pdainsworth (Jun 6, 2004)

PJ352 said:


> Hey, at least you have a decent website pic to use as a reference. When Spec offered the 2011 Tarmac Pro in Project Black members only knew of it because another member/ dealer posted a pic and provided some details.
> 
> Just for its inherent slipperiness, I would think a gloss clear coat would always have an aero edge on matte, and considering Spec offers 2 of the 3 S-Works Venges in gloss, they (apparently) agree.
> 
> FWIW I'll second BikerNutz endorsement of Meguire's Car Wax, but I've only ever used it on gloss (bike) finishes.


I am a fan of Pedro's Bike Lust. I use it on my matte finished Tarmac SL4, and it gives it a nice gloss, for about five minutes, then just returns to a matte finish. It DOES seem to make the bike a bit easier to clean, post ride.


----------



## thumper8888 (Apr 7, 2009)

roadworthy said:


> I have the same Roubaix Pro framset and color as BikerNutz. The frame is an interesting collage of painted and translucent carbon weave and as mentioned, shot with matte clear coat over the entire frame. My presumption is...in the silver painted areas, matte clear coat is shot over both silver paint and in the unpainted areas of the frame, you can see thru the matte clear coat through the weave. A couple of comments about the frame aesthetic. For those car guys out there, the frame has almost a hotrod or ratrod look to it. Its pretty unique and it has taken me a while to get used to it as all carbon bikes I have owned earlier have been a uniform weave or painted or both with a gloss clear coat. For those that ride or race off road, Easton had a carbon handlebar a while back called the monkeylight that had the same quality...a marble-ized finish without a cosmetic 3K or UT carbon top layer...also shot with matte clear over it that would allow one to peer through the non uniform carbon weave...see below.
> 
> The thing about the Roubaix Pro and Specialized may also apply the same effect on the Tarmac in certain areas of the frame, because the weave isn't uniform and its translucent, the frame changes colors in the areas without paint as the light refracts through the layers. When I first opened the box, I said, oh oh...what is up with the paint job on this frame? Then I determined through talking with different owners, this is by Specialized intent...so I calmed down and accepted it. I believe it also lowers the frame weight by not having the frame covered with a cosmetic and non structural weave to create a uniform appearance.
> 
> ...



Here's something to know about woven carbon cloth if it is the exterior layer of the frame or wheels (yes I'm talking about Reynolds DV3K). If you see that woven "carbon" look, your bike has excess weight for no good reason... typically the frame is made up of dozens of layers of unidirectional carbon, essentially tiny threads.... proper engineering in the design of the frame will dictate which way each layer is running... at a specific joint area, most will be running in the main direction where strengh is needed, with some lyaers run off-axis to take care of torsional loads. Again, with proper engineering, just the right amount is running in each direction for the loads at that point in the frame. Plus theres always a bit more of course for safety factor.
obviously a layer of woven is, at best, using half its fibers in exactly the wrong direction. thats an oversimplification, as of course mostly BOTH directions of the 90 degree weave patter will be off the axis of the main load path, and provide some impact resistance (not much) and some help with torsional loads etc.
But mainly it's cosmetic and extra weight. It frankly is almost criminal on those Dv3Ks...ton o fmoney to get light wheels and boom, extra laminate of only partial use.
The finish you describe is the way a proper, minimal laminate looks.
The bits where you cant see the fibers, that's where they did gluing to join components and/or fillets of epoxy bog to smooth and round the joints... but really should be little or no filler there... they paint over these areas because visually they're untidy.
The woven finish is tricky at the joints too, as the cloth doesnt fit or drape perfectly. The mark of a nice carbon craftsman on those frames is a tidy looking joint because you cant hide the weave there.


----------



## thumper8888 (Apr 7, 2009)

PJ352 said:


> Hey, at least you have a decent website pic to use as a reference. When Spec offered the 2011 Tarmac Pro in Project Black members only knew of it because another member/ dealer posted a pic and provided some details.
> 
> Just for its inherent slipperiness, I would think a gloss clear coat would always have an aero edge on matte, and considering Spec offers 2 of the 3 S-Works Venges in gloss, they (apparently) agree.
> 
> FWIW I'll second BikerNutz endorsement of Meguire's Car Wax, but I've only ever used it on gloss (bike) finishes.


Research the finish on boats.... 400 to 1200 grit sandpaper is better than glossy as it essentially grabs a layer of water and drags it along, and that boundary layer acts as the final finish coat and is more slippery that a glossy bottom.
I think for air at relatively low speeds its probably true, too.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

thumper8888 said:


> Research the finish on boats.... 400 to 1200 grit sandpaper is better than glossy as it essentially grabs a layer of water and drags it along, and that boundary layer acts as the final finish coat and is more slippery that a glossy bottom.
> I think for air at relatively low speeds its probably true, too.


I see comparing the incomparable here, but that aside, I think aero advantages only matter to those who are sponsored or (for whatever reason) seconds count, as in competition.

If I return to point A two minutes earlier (or later) it matters little, but training harder and/ or dropping a few pounds will probably net me more of a gain... and at a far lower cost.


----------



## roadworthy (Nov 11, 2011)

thumper8888 said:


> Here's something to know about woven carbon cloth if it is the exterior layer of the frame or wheels (yes I'm talking about Reynolds DV3K). If you see that woven "carbon" look, your bike has excess weight for no good reason... typically the frame is made up of dozens of layers of unidirectional carbon, essentially tiny threads.... proper engineering in the design of the frame will dictate which way each layer is running... at a specific joint area, most will be running in the main direction where strengh is needed, with some lyaers run off-axis to take care of torsional loads. Again, with proper engineering, just the right amount is running in each direction for the loads at that point in the frame. Plus theres always a bit more of course for safety factor.
> obviously a layer of woven is, at best, using half its fibers in exactly the wrong direction. thats an oversimplification, as of course mostly BOTH directions of the 90 degree weave patter will be off the axis of the main load path, and provide some impact resistance (not much) and some help with torsional loads etc.
> But mainly it's cosmetic and extra weight. It frankly is almost criminal on those Dv3Ks...ton o fmoney to get light wheels and boom, extra laminate of only partial use.
> The finish you describe is the way a proper, minimal laminate looks.
> ...


Well explained and understood...why I posted a couple of pics showing the weave exposed without a cosmetic coating that only adds weight and not structure as you explain. This is however an aesthetic risk for Specialized. You get it and I get it and the result is a lighter and stronger frame but cosmetically having a non uniform translucent carbon weave isn't for everybody. I believe the industry is maturing relative to carbon and ready for this aesthetic but Specialized could have painted over the entire frame and not let the irregular weave shine through. Instead of making the entire frame opaque they chose what you see and believe they do this on more than just the Roubaix.
In any event I accept it and understand why it is what it is and you did a good job of explaining carbon fiber 101.
Thanks.


----------



## thumper8888 (Apr 7, 2009)

Paint is heavy enough to maybe make a difference in marketing....and pob they would still put clear on too so no weight savings there ...


----------



## thumper8888 (Apr 7, 2009)

Any speed gain from the finish, whichever option is faster, would be measurable but easily overcome by losing some tiny amount of personal weight.... Like half a gram.


----------



## roadworthy (Nov 11, 2011)

thumper8888 said:


> Paint is heavy enough to maybe make a difference in marketing....and pob they would still put clear on too so no weight savings there ...


Actually the weight of paint doesn't affect marketing...but the appearance of paint or lack thereof does. That is why carbon frames are painted at a miniscule increase in weight and cost and not just cleared. Most cyclists aren't ready to see lack of uniform carbon weave through clearcoat for the overall frame. So presence and weight penalty of paint is accepted in favor of creating an aesthetic that makes a frame appealing visually...aka contributes to marketing.
The weight penalty of paint is nebulous but the cost isn't. Of course if Specialized can do what they did with the Roubaix which is a combination of a opaque painted frame and natural carbon, it both creates the aesthetic they apparently want to put out there and save some weight from painting the whole frame.


----------



## thumper8888 (Apr 7, 2009)

I don't think we're far apart here, but the weight of paint could affect marketing... its not a negligible weight, and I can see where you could easily spray 80-110 grams on there. Some care more about weight than others, whether it's reasonable or not, and there is a possible difference between marketing.
Thing about an 850-gram frame versus a 960 gram one... 850 says: "cutting edge, R5 Californish" and 960 says "standard modern light frame"
then think about difference between say a 990 gram one versus 1100 gram frame...
And witness this piece of thread from Weightweenies over the weight differences in Venges, where the $18K McLaren is apparently heavier than the $4,400 sworks frame just because of some red trim, not even full paint job... albeit stiffer and better built...if you read carefully, they're talking about not just a 70-gram gain for the red trim, but a 140-gram swing, from 70 grams lighter, without paint to 70 grams heavier, based on actual measurement...there are caveats, including weights from two sources and the s-words being 54cm rather than 56. My common sense dictaces those stripes could not possibly weigh 140...maybe 40 or 50 grams...But you get the point...:


".....so it's 1120 for a mclaren 56, 1050 for an sworks 54. mclaren is 10% stiffer, definitely nicer looking on the inside, that's about it. Specialized guy said unpainted frames are about 70g lighter than sworks ones, but the bright orange/red needs a lot of coats to be so bright. 
i say if it needs that much weight in paint, they should have made it a different, lighter (in weight) color."


----------



## RkFast (Dec 11, 2004)

Guys...if paint weight was a huge factor you wouldnt see the Pros bikes with the sick custom three layer thick paint jobs on them.


----------



## thumper8888 (Apr 7, 2009)

RkFast said:


> Guys...if paint weight was a huge factor you wouldnt see the Pros bikes with the sick custom three layer thick paint jobs on them.


I said it was a MARKETING factor. I didn't say it made a significant or even faintly important difference in performance.
Re-read the post. If you think there are people out there who don't roll frame weight into their purchase decision, and aren't swayed by 50-100gms of difference you haven't been paying much attention to to the endless weight weenie hand-wringing over smaller weight differences than that in forums here there and yon.
I didn't say it meant anything at all to me personally, or that it would make a difference in performance.
I live in America after all and a metric crap-ton of people here are more interested in the sizzle than the steak... hence the resonance still of "Death of a Salesman."
Not to get all philosophical on you.


----------



## Stumpjumper FSR (Aug 6, 2006)

thumper8888 said:


> About to take delivery of frame ... saw somewhere someone advocated waxing it, though I'm not sure exactly what that would do... I guess the main concern would be rubs and near-scratches that create, smoother, shiny areas?
> anyway, would welcome any thoughts/advice from folks with that matte, "project black" type finish.


I received this answer from Specialized Customer Service years ago when I asked the same question:

Specialized official position is that you should not use car wax. Because each wax is different, and we don't have the ability to test all types of waxes, we cannot guarantee that it will not harm your frame in some way. We have used Bike Lust and can say it works well at cleaning, protecting and making your bike shine with a beautiful luster without any adverse side-effects. 

I’ve used Bike Lust on all my bikes including my White / Matte Black 2011 Roubaix Pro
and its looks great, it doesn’t make the black look glossy.


----------



## roadworthy (Nov 11, 2011)

thumper8888 said:


> I said it was a MARKETING factor. I didn't say it made a significant or even faintly important difference in performance.
> Re-read the post. If you think there are people out there who don't roll frame weight into their purchase decision, and aren't swayed by 50-100gms of difference you haven't been paying much attention to to the endless weight weenie hand-wringing over smaller weight differences than that in forums here there and yon.
> I didn't say it meant anything at all to me personally, or that it would make a difference in performance.
> I live in America after all and a metric crap-ton of people here are more interested in the sizzle than the steak... hence the resonance still of "Death of a Salesman."
> Not to get all philosophical on you.


Not to get overly philosophical with you  but since you seem to actually believe your assertion, I dismiss what you believe. Glizzy paint jobs as Rkfast say, trump a few grams saved by omitting said glizzy paint job from a marketing perspective. You have your opinion and I have mine. What settles the issue then? Cost and profit. Paint costs money and fancy paint jobs in particular cost money for paint, set up and cycle time in manufacturing. Bling aka fancy paint jobs sell more bikes than a handful of grams saved...marketing 101. You would be an outliar in any focus group...lol. Less cost in paint if the frame can still be made attractive enough not to slight demand means more profit. A handiful of grams doesn't mean much. In fact, those handful of grams are obfuscated by lack of a firm advertising of what a given frameset weighs relative to given frame size. Specialized and other manufacturers are very careful not to advertise precise gram weights because it would indeed alienate weight weenies as misguided as they are.
The lack of paint versus weight save issue you seem to believe wouldn't affect marketing because there is no marketing derived by advertising any advantage. Lack of paint does affect marketing from a visual standpoint. Fancy paint jobs not only increase bling but also enhance exclusivity...more marketing 101 and sell more frames...but fancy paint jobs cost most and subtract profit. Weight of paint isn't even in the value analysis.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

RkFast said:


> Guys...if paint weight was a huge factor you wouldnt see the Pros bikes with the sick custom three layer thick paint jobs on them.


Not necessarily. Without that paint, the pro's bikes may tip the scales at a lower than the currently allowed UCI limit of 14.99 lbs., meaning that weight would have to be added to be race legal. 

In this case, it's a win-win. Pretty bikes _and_ the needed additional weight.


----------



## thumper8888 (Apr 7, 2009)

roadworthy said:


> Not to get overly philosophical with you  but since you seem to actually believe your assertion, I dismiss what you believe. Glizzy paint jobs as Rkfast say, trump a few grams saved by omitting said glizzy paint job from a marketing perspective. You have your opinion and I have mine. What settles the issue then? Cost and profit. Paint costs money and fancy paint jobs in particular cost money for paint, set up and cycle time in manufacturing. Bling aka fancy paint jobs sell more bikes than a handful of grams saved...marketing 101. You would be an outliar in any focus group...lol. Less cost in paint if the frame can still be made attractive enough not to slight demand means more profit. A handiful of grams doesn't mean much. In fact, those handful of grams are obfuscated by lack of a firm advertising of what a given frameset weighs relative to given frame size. Specialized and other manufacturers are very careful not to advertise precise gram weights because it would indeed alienate weight weenies as misguided as they are.
> The lack of paint versus weight save issue you seem to believe wouldn't affect marketing because there is no marketing derived by advertising any advantage. Lack of paint does affect marketing from a visual standpoint. Fancy paint jobs not only increase bling but also enhance exclusivity...more marketing 101 and sell more frames...but fancy paint jobs cost most and subtract profit. Weight of paint isn't even in the value analysis.


Weight of paint isn't even in the value analysis?
You're going too far there.
50 or 70 grams isnt just "a handful of grams" when people are bragging about ultralight frames.
There's much in what you say. Still, people weigh the frames, the weights get known. pretty much all the light ones have very little paint.
Jazzy paint works no doubt, but not at the end of the market segment where weight is a selling point.
I do thing the post about getting weight back up to UCI is a good point, and that's something that is coming into play more and more with decision making on features vs. weight for companies selling frames and components... essentially with things so light it's not hard to get under the limit, you start looking at other things you can do to improve performance, or at least market your stuff as if you are... 
more carbon in the BB area a la the mclaren venge, for example... aero stuff, which usually is a tad heavier... electronic shifting.
so, yeah, paint too.. why not. could be aa better option than glassing in little lead fishing weights.
What settles the issue? I see a ton of frames now with little paint, own two, and have a third on the way. I think the free market has settled the issue.


----------



## roadworthy (Nov 11, 2011)

thumper8888 said:


> Weight of paint isn't even in the value analysis?
> You're going too far there.
> 50 or 70 grams isnt just "a handful of grams" when people are bragging about ultralight frames.
> There's much in what you say. Still, people weigh the frames, the weights get known. pretty much all the light ones have very little paint.
> ...


Yeah...the free market has settled the issue. There are tons of frames with little paint and *tons of frames with a lot of paint*. Where there isn't a lot of paint, *many times its with an added layer of carbon that adds more weight without structure than paint.*
Do people choose a frame solely on weight? Yes, some sadly do. But if you missed the previous point, I will state it again. Specialized does not advertise precise weights. They do this by intent. There are a lot of lighter frames out there and many of which I wouldn't care to ride. The paint versus weight debate is ridiculous. Paint exists to protect the carbon and sell more bikes for making the bike more exclusive and attractive. Unpainted frames generally have a cosmetic layer of carbon over them that weights a lot more than a coat of paint. It also costs a mfr much more to produce for this added cosmetic lay up in the mold. Why do they do it? Appearance. They believe that a good looking carbon frame will sell more and they do. Same reason that carbon frames are painted versus just cleared. The weight debate about paint is silly.


----------



## thumper8888 (Apr 7, 2009)

roadworthy said:


> Yeah...the free market has settled the issue. There are tons of frames with little paint and *tons of frames with a lot of paint*. Where there isn't a lot of paint, *many times its with an added layer of carbon that adds more weight without structure than paint.*
> Do people choose a frame solely on weight? Yes, some sadly do. But if you missed the previous point, I will state it again. Specialized does not advertise precise weights. They do this by intent. There are a lot of lighter frames out there and many of which I wouldn't care to ride. The paint versus weight debate is ridiculous. Paint exists to protect the carbon and sell more bikes for making the bike more exclusive and attractive. Unpainted frames generally have a cosmetic layer of carbon over them that weights a lot more than a coat of paint. It also costs a mfr much more to produce for this added cosmetic lay up in the mold. Why do they do it? Appearance. They believe that a good looking carbon frame will sell more and they do. Same reason that carbon frames are painted versus just cleared. The weight debate about paint is silly.


manufacturers are moving away from that woven layer. two of my three -- the 2012 and 2009 frames -- dont have it, they lean on the straight up structural uni. The one that does have it was made in 2006. I think you will struggle to find a new high end race frame with the weave look.
I didnt miss your point on spesh not giving weights. But people who are interested in weights can and do get the numbers.
Appearance can still be nice with the uni thing. The ridley noah, tarmac, etc are hardly ugly bikes and to my eye look better than the weave thing, which is basically becoming outdated as people come to realize it doesnt serve much function beyond cosmetics.
Everything I'm talking about here is in reference to high end race bikes. I think what you say about paint and its importances is true for the 99 percent that makes up the rest of the market and partially true for the race bike market.
I dont disagree that a debate about the performance benefits of leaving off the weight of paint is probably silly...


----------



## roadworthy (Nov 11, 2011)

thumper8888 said:


> manufacturers are moving away from that woven layer. two of my three -- the 2012 and 2009 frames -- dont have it, they lean on the straight up structural uni. The one that does have it was made in 2006. I think you will struggle to find a new high end race frame with the weave look.
> I didnt miss your point on spesh not giving weights. But people who are interested in weights can and do get the numbers.
> Appearance can still be nice with the uni thing. The ridley noah, tarmac, etc are hardly ugly bikes and to my eye look better than the weave thing, which is basically becoming outdated as people come to realize it doesnt serve much function beyond cosmetics.
> Everything I'm talking about here is in reference to high end race bikes. I think what you say about paint and its importances is true for the 99 percent that makes up the rest of the market and partially true for the race bike market.
> I dont disagree that a debate about the performance benefits of leaving off the weight of paint is probably silly...


Many good points and there is the fashion element as well. You are quite right, carbon is maturing and knowledgable owners aren't buying into the 3K cosmetic weave top coat any more. Virgin weave is becoming more acceptable a la my new Roubaix including the overall matte finish on the bike which gives it a more purposeful or ratrod look. Kudos to Specialized for being leading edge with not only their frame shapes that create such great performance but their minimal graphics versus littering the frame like Trek still does after all these years with Trek on every frame member including fork.


----------



## roadworthy (Nov 11, 2011)

Stumpjumper FSR said:


> I received this answer from Specialized Customer Service years ago when I asked the same question:
> 
> Specialized official position is that you should not use car wax. Because each wax is different, and we don't have the ability to test all types of waxes, we cannot guarantee that it will not harm your frame in some way. We have used Bike Lust and can say it works well at cleaning, protecting and making your bike shine with a beautiful luster without any adverse side-effects.
> 
> ...


I find this a bit ridiculous. There is no difference between a urethane based clear coat on a car and one used on a carbon frame. Any name brand car wax would only offer protection to clear coat be it automobile or bicycle frame. I have been waxing my carbon bikes for years and will continue to do so.


----------



## Stumpjumper FSR (Aug 6, 2006)

*Wax On...Wax Off*



roadworthy said:


> I find this a bit ridiculous. There is no difference between a urethane based clear coat on a car and one used on a carbon frame. Any name brand car wax would only offer protection to clear coat be it automobile or bicycle frame. I have been waxing my carbon bikes for years and will continue to do so.


Ridiculous or not this is the answer I received from Specialized....


----------



## roadworthy (Nov 11, 2011)

Stumpjumper FSR said:


> Ridiculous or not this is the answer I received from Specialized....


You stated that. Nor will it be the last stupid CWA comment from a phone jockey told to hold the company liability line of covering all possible contingencies.


----------



## Stumpjumper FSR (Aug 6, 2006)

roadworthy said:


> You stated that. Nor will it be the last stupid CWA comment from a phone jockey told to hold the company liability line of covering all possible contingencies.


I'm certain you know whats best, all I know is that since using Bike Lust as Specialized
has suggested I have not needed to wax my bikes...my 2007 Roubaix still looks brand new.


----------



## roadworthy (Nov 11, 2011)

Stumpjumper FSR said:


> I'm certain you know whats best, all I know is that since using Bike Lust as Specialized
> has suggested I have not needed to wax my bikes...my 2007 Roubaix still looks brand new.


I think so. I do know alot about paint. You want to know what's worse than waxing your frame which only enriches the clearcoat? Washing it with dishwashing soap or Simple Green. What to many owners do? Wash their bikes with dish soap or Simple Green. Either product strips the clear coat of its elastomers and embrittles it...the very properties that protect the carbon. Clearcoat is just paint without pigment.
There is a funny saying in show car circles about ignorant owners. There should be a carfax for owners. Few know how to care for paint properly.


----------



## thumper8888 (Apr 7, 2009)

roadworthy said:


> Many good points and there is the fashion element as well. You are quite right, carbon is maturing and knowledgable owners aren't buying into the 3K cosmetic weave top coat any more. Virgin weave is becoming more acceptable a la my new Roubaix including the overall matte finish on the bike which gives it a more purposeful or ratrod look. Kudos to Specialized for being leading edge with not only their frame shapes that create such great performance but their minimal graphics versus littering the frame like Trek still does after all these years with Trek on every frame member including fork.


this reminds me of something that is an entirely different can of worms: why is Trek so aesthetically challenged? I'm sure the Madone is nicely built and the geometry, engineering etc is good. But christ, the look of it.... Chevy Impala?
Especially with composites there is no excuse not to make stuff nice looking. It can be molded in any shape.
The Tarmac and Roubaix have been sexy from day one... given challenges from the more relaxed geometry on the Roubaix, they could have been excused for drawing something that wasn't nice, but it came out not only nice, but to my tastes, great.
Even the 2005 s-works E5 I had is STILL nice looking.
Trek has plenty of money, that's their flagship and you get... meh?
and the word itself means matriarch?


----------



## roadworthy (Nov 11, 2011)

thumper8888 said:


> this reminds me of something that is an entirely different can of worms: why is Trek so aesthetically challenged? I'm sure the Madone is nicely built and the geometry, engineering etc is good. But christ, the look of it.... Chevy Impala?
> Especially with composites there is no excuse not to make stuff nice looking. It can be molded in any shape.
> The Tarmac and Roubaix have been sexy from day one... given challenges from the more relaxed geometry on the Roubaix, they could have been excused for drawing something that wasn't nice, but it came out not only nice, but to my tastes, great.
> Even the 2005 s-works E5 I had is STILL nice looking.
> ...


A very good question. Trek used to be best in class but they have had some pretty serious faux pas' in recent years. Their BB30 issue with slip fit bearings is a pretty notable mistake. They lost a lot of business due to that. Their paint jobs are an abomination...very busy and not even close to understated. More like a billboard.
In design it always comes down to decision making. Trek felt they need to follow class leading Specialized and came out with H1, H2 and H3 geometry to compete with bikes like the Roubaix. Look what has happened to Cervelo. The bike business like any high tech competitive business is difficult. Trek does a lot of things right. Given a choice, I prefer a Specialized bike and maybe one or two other choices. I used to be more of a fan of Trek but not so much anymore.


----------

