# What's the Difference? Z vs F



## BigSur (May 9, 2005)

Ok, I understand the difference in geometry of the two bikes, with emphasis on the longer head tube for comfort option. But I noticed that the Garmin/Chipotle guys who ride the Z frames, have the stem slammed all the way down for maximum aero position, thus eliminating the comfort factor. 

So, with the stem set all the way down on both frames for racing, does anyone know what then becomes the main difference in performance/feel between the two?? Could a Z frame be just as effective in a Crit as an F frame? I believe the F1 and Z1 are just as stiff and light as each other.


----------



## traumabill (Sep 16, 2007)

The bigger head tube of the Z is still going to provide a more "comfortable" riding position,albeit somewhat. Guys on F bikes also have their stems slammed for the most part also, so they'll be lower than guys on the Z. The Z has a longer wheelbase, is more stable - not to say that the F is sketchy or skittish - and more predictable. The F will be a little bit more aggressive in the corners. Will Frischkorn was interviewed in RBA when they reviewed the Z15. He called tthe Z frame "predictable" in crits and other flat type races.
As far as stiffness - the F1 Sprint is the stiffest, then the Z1, then the regular F1 (SL) then the AR, The AR is nowhere near a noodle, btw. The F1SL is lighter than the Z1..

Hope this helps,

Bill.


----------



## jm3 (Mar 22, 2003)

Seat angle and wheelbase are the two biggest differences for the Garmin guys who choose the Z geometry. The Z bikes have a slacker seat angle, which many riders requirer in order to place themselves in their preferred position. As Traumabill stated, the wheelbase makes them more stable, and comfortable, which is why you see more of them in the Classics.

The production AR should actually come in stiffer than the F bikes, with the exception of the Sprint. The one I've been riding is very stiff, but it's a thicker carbon lay-up than the production models. I'm also going to try one with a bayonette fork set-up, and that should be really, really stiff up front.


----------



## BigSur (May 9, 2005)

jm3 said:


> Seat angle and wheelbase are the two biggest differences for the Garmin guys who choose the Z geometry. The Z bikes have a slacker seat angle, which many riders requirer in order to place themselves in their preferred position. As Traumabill stated, the wheelbase makes them more stable, and comfortable, which is why you see more of them in the Classics.
> 
> The production AR should actually come in stiffer than the F bikes, with the exception of the Sprint. The one I've been riding is very stiff, but it's a thicker carbon lay-up than the production models. I'm also going to try one with a bayonette fork set-up, and that should be really, really stiff up front.


Thanks for the replies...makes sense! So for the Garmin riders who are riding the Z frames for the slacker SA, are they compensating the longer head tube by using STEMS that are longer with steeper rise angles, to drop the handlebars as low and as far out as possible?


----------



## jm3 (Mar 22, 2003)

Correct, they slam and flip Oval's 84 degree stems. On the F bikes, many riders utilize a seatpost with extra set-back to obtain the positions they desire.


----------

