# Tarmac 11R, 10R, SL4, SL3... what gives?



## new2rd (Aug 8, 2010)

Ok, so I understand that manufactures must put out new products to make a profit and a lot of the new products are pushed by pro athletes, but I'm a bit confused with Specialized.

Last year the Tarmac SL3 was supose to be the best ever (stiffest, blah, blah, blah) and then this year they release the SL4 and basically say (oops, that was too stiff and the pro's didn't like it). I'm assuming that the 10r vs.11r is based on the type of carbon fiber. Perhaps the higher number being the lightest? Strongest? The Top of the line 2009 model featured 11r, shouldn't they be on 14r by now? 

Can someone chime in on the differences? Is there really a difference to a normal person that's not capable of pushing out 500+ watts going up a 14% grade at 20mph? 

Does anyone have a weight comparison between a SL4 Pro 10r and a SL4 S Works 11r frameset? 

Any help would be greatly appreciated. I'm wanting to build a new bike later this year and just wanted to see what the truth was about these numbers.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

new2rd said:


> Ok, so I understand that manufactures must put out new products to make a profit and a lot of the new products are pushed by pro athletes, but I'm a bit confused with Specialized.
> 
> Last year the Tarmac SL3 was supose to be the best ever (stiffest, blah, blah, blah) and then this year they release the SL4 and basically say (oops, that was too stiff and the pro's didn't like it). I'm assuming that the 10r vs.11r is based on the type of carbon fiber. Perhaps the higher number being the lightest? Strongest? The Top of the line 2009 model featured 11r, shouldn't they be on 14r by now?
> 
> ...


The 'r' designations that Spec uses relate to the tensile modulus of the fiber being used. Simply put, the higher the number (or modulus) the lighter and stiffer the end result will be. In other words, a higher STW (strength to weight) ratio. But that only tells part of the story, because the type of weave (or layup) that's used contributes not only to how a bike will ride and handle, but also it's strength/ stiffness, so the result is a blend of both modulus of fibers and layup, among other factors. Also, regardless of frame material, geometry dictates handling (and to some extent, ride) as well. 

For example, a Tarmac and Roubaix constructed exactly the same and having the same components, wheels, tires and PSI's equalized will still ride and handle differently, simply because their geo differs.

Re: the SL2, 3,4 designations, they relate to the tubing shapes and general frame design. Again, no matter the frame materials, generally speaking and all else being equal (specifically, tube thickness), the larger the tubing diameter, the stiffer the resultant frame construction will be, so this is one of the 'among other factors' mentioned above. Modulus of fiber, weave (or layup) tubing shape, geometry and construction methods all play a role in how a bike will ride/ handle.

To answer your question " Is there really a difference to a normal person that's not capable of pushing out 500+ watts going up a 14% grade at 20mph?", I would say it's inherently subjective and depends on a number of factors, but primarily the two bikes being compared. Earlier Roubaix's were known to have pretty flexy HT areas, so if you were to compare an '06 Roubaix to a current model, there's a chance of a discernible difference. Among the current models, I think differences are very small, so when Spec says there's an 18% increase in stiffness from an SL3 to SL4, if you aren't flexing your current bike, you won't feel a difference in the newer/ stiffer model.

Same goes for weights. Once you get to the Pro model levels and above, the differences narrow and diminishing returns takes over, so there's a high cost attached to that 50-80g weight savings and (supposed) more compliant ride. 

Some sources:
Carbon Fiber | Zoltek

Specialized FACT: Whitepaper
Specifically, Material selection and Design/ engineering


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

LOL that's Specialized for you. Specialized want to corner every sub categories possible, so the marketing guys come up with all these models. They do the same thing with their mountain bike division, they have bikes different bikes (each for men and women) in all sort of suspension travel, in 5mm increments it seems! Reminds me of GM's old days of having 1000 submodels.

I've given up on trying to keep up with all their models and submodels. You're not the only one confused. I was about to get an SL3 Tarmac myself, admittedly partly based on their marketing hype (stiff yet comfortable, blah blah..) until I saw the Made in Taiwan sticker on the frameset in the LBS. LOL ultimately I concluded that there's no way I'm paying that kind of money for something made in Taiwan and will be made obsolete and lose prolly 2/3 of its value in 2 years.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

aclinjury said:


> LOL that's Specialized for you. Specialized want to corner every sub categories possible, so the marketing guys come up with all these models. They do the same thing with their mountain bike division, they have bikes different bikes (each for men and women) in all sort of suspension travel, in 5mm increments it seems! Reminds me of GM's old days of having 1000 submodels.
> 
> I've given up on trying to keep up with all their models and submodels. You're not the only one confused. I was about to get an SL3 Tarmac myself, admittedly partly based on their marketing hype (stiff yet comfortable, blah blah..) until I saw the Made in Taiwan sticker on the frameset in the LBS. LOL ultimately I concluded that there's no way I'm paying that kind of money for something made in Taiwan and will be made obsolete and lose prolly 2/3 of its value in 2 years.


Not arguing that marketing hype permeates this industry (or your opinions in general), but the 'r' and 'SL' designations Spec uses aren't any different than other makers. Trek uses OCLV (among others) and Giant, C'dale, etc. have their own. When you find out what C'dales Optimo aluminum is, pls let me know. 

As far as that Made in Taiwan sticker, again, you're entitled to your opinions, but fact is the current Taiwanese manufacturers (Merida, Ideal, Giant) are arguably the best in the world. When Ridley had problems with their Belgium made CF bikes, they moved production to one of those factories, as did Colnago, after problems with Italian made frames.

Re: depreciation, that's a fact of life in most any industry. You might do a little better going with a custom manufacturer (Serotta, IF, Waterford...), but I would advise against straying from their stock geometry, otherwise you narrow your resale market finding a suitable buyer for custom geo.


----------



## dare- (Sep 11, 2011)

99% of bikes are made in China and Taiwan...some of the best in the world. Off the shelf bikes are way better made than they were in the 70s...when most were made in the US. Back then, a typical bike rarely came aligned straight from the factory.


----------



## The Mountaineer (Nov 11, 2010)

aclinjury said:


> LOL ultimately I concluded that there's no way I'm paying that kind of money for something made in Taiwan and will be made obsolete and lose prolly 2/3 of its value in 2 years.


Specialized bikes actually hold their value quite well specifically the 54/56cm Tarmacs. In addition many other bike manufactures from "countries with high reputation" are way overpriced to begin with.

I'm not sure why people expect a bike to hold value after riding the hell out of it for 5000-6000 miles anyways.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

While searching for used bikes, I've run into quite a few ads on S-Works Tarmac from 2010 & 2011. Recently saw a used 2010 S-Works SL3 Tarmac with Sram Red, in pristine excellent condition with 1000mi on it, has no rock ding, sold for $3500. Now this was a great deal, but did not buy because of wrong size, but it also goes to show what kind value it has to be lowered to be sold quick. At $4500, nobody would bite. This bike was probably over $8000 out the door with tax when new a year ago.

Just 2 months ago, a local LBS told me they could give me a deal on an SL3 Tarmac Pro for $3700 out the door, then 1 month ago, they called back and told me now I can have an SL4 Tarmac Pro for $3700 + tax. I mean prices are falling like crazy and I didn't have to look hard. May where I am (socal), competition is good so prices fall quickly? Sometimes, I really really question the value of building a new build when you can just wait a little bit and buy a slightly used one for over half off. Sure you don't get lifetime warranty and blah blah, but remember you're saving over half the value of a new bike, and that itself is another bike right there! That's your warranty.

However, after much debating, I got a used 2010 Serotta Ottrott SE. Right of the bat, I will say this though. The finish & paint quality & graphic details on the Serotta is better than the S-Works. The Serotta is also heavier (17.6 lbs vs 16.1 lbs), but at the end of the day, I say to myself I'm not a racer, and I decided to choose a product which I think I won't be made or be urged to upgrade. Personally I feel that the "Specialized" experience is not about stiffness nor ride qualaity, more like a never ending need to upgrade to the latest. I didn't want to be a part of this, so went with Serotta.

And 5000 miles on a well built bike is nothing. My coworker puts 7000mi/yr on his bike. My current "workhorse" bike is a 1993 Casati (columbus steel) that probably sees over 50,000 mi on its original dura ace wheels (when 700c x 20 was hip!).


----------



## roadworthy (Nov 11, 2011)

I think PJ really put it very well. Its about diminishing return and OP what you stated in your opening thread about the watt output of an average rider. Diminishing return is...the Pro level bike with 10r carbon...I just built a Roubaix Pro with 10r...and have had it out a couple of times now...is very stiff. I am 185# and can't flex it. The downtube is huge as is the bottom bracket web section. For a grand more you can get the Sworks 11r bike either Roubaix or Tarmac. I know for me, it would be money ill spent because the 10r really is the sweet spot for me. If you have a lot of money however or want to build the baddest...the 11r bikes are terrific because they also have good vertical compliance. 

As to the carbon designation...in strength of materials or material science, there is density...or weight per unit volume and tensile strength and modulus of elasticity or flex which is heavily influenced by volume of material. Take an aluminum bike for example. Aluminum inherently is a very flexibile material and yet Al bikes are generally stiff. This is because a fairly large volume of Al is required for adequate yield strength to prevent failure and this brings along stiffness without too great a weight penalty. Don't be misled into believing that a 11r carbon bike is stiffer...it maybe fractionally. But to better understand its contribution...11 r carbon strands have a higher tensile strength. They weigh about the same as 10r carbon. So where is the improvement you may ask? For a given tube section or section modulus, you need a certain level of strength for durability which includes yield strength and fatigue life and of course performance which is deflection per unit load. Simply put, you need less volume of 11r carbon for the same strength as 10r which translates to lighter weight. Now...Specialized engineers may want to split the difference, i.e. reduce weight only fractionally and then reap the benefit of greater strength and stiffness. Suffice to say the relative weight of carbon, lay up and geometry as PJ mentioned is truly mind bending as the permutations are endless. The engineers that develop these frames and I believe Specialized to be among the best, no doubt build countless configurations and test for the best balance of stiffness, weight and durability.


----------



## Rugergundog (Apr 2, 2011)

Dude, your reading way too much into it.


Specialized and some other brands continue to rename the improved models with a new designation.......this is marketing for the "keep up with the Jones" factor. They could just as easy just keep the name a simple "tarmac" But then the guys with 2009 bikes wouldn't bike a new bike....Specialized is in business for two reason....to sell bikes and to make money.

But what most fail to really realize is Specialized really is almost like two companies. The S-Works and the Specialized. Sort of like Chevy and GMC. The same but different. Trek has a line of madones, MASI has different models, GIANT has several different grades of carbon...its common.

A company would be foolish not to upgrade its products to stay ahead or level with others.

Gotta understand some of the upgrades in carbon and even the bike design are now splitting hairs and are going to be very minimal.

So will you notice the diffy in 10R and 11R...prob not. But can you tell the SL4 is different than the SL3...sure can.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

roadworthy said:


> Aluminum inherently is a very flexible material and yet Al bikes are generally stiff.


Not trying to nit pick, but aluminum actually is a soft, stiff material, resistant to bending, thus it's finite fatigue strength. With every 'cycle' (meaning, impact) it's life cycle is shortened. This sounds much worse than it actually is, because as you stated (paraphrasing), alu frames are overbuilt to compensate. 

IMO/E, for someone interested in retaining ride quality, steel is a close second to CF. But when on a budget, alu makes for a stiff, light race bike.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

aclinjury said:


> However, after much debating, I got a used 2010 Serotta Ottrott SE. Right of the bat, I will say this though. The finish & paint quality & graphic details on the Serotta is better than the S-Works. The Serotta is also heavier (17.6 lbs vs 16.1 lbs), but at the end of the day, I say to myself I'm not a racer, and I decided to choose a product which I think I won't be made or be urged to upgrade. Personally I feel that the "Specialized" experience is not about stiffness nor ride qualaity, more like a never ending need to upgrade to the latest. I didn't want to be a part of this, so went with Serotta.
> 
> And 5000 miles on a well built bike is nothing. My coworker puts 7000mi/yr on his bike. My current "workhorse" bike is a 1993 Casati (columbus steel) that probably sees over 50,000 mi on its original dura ace wheels (when 700c x 20 was hip!).


For certain, Serotta makes fine bikes, with attention to details that the prices command. I have a '91 Colorado ll that (through my own negligence) is rusting internally and (after a crash) relegated to my trainer. I've lost track of the mileage, but it's in the ten's of thousands, so yes, I agree that 5k miles on a bike is nothing. 

I do disagree with you on the "Specialized" experience, though. When I was test riding bike to replace my Serotta, I rode a LOT of them and the only one that had the similar feel to my Serotta was the '08 Tarmac Comp that I ultimately purchased. 

Sure, Spec (like all the other big brands) wants us to buy a new bike regularly and strives to make that happen. But no one has too and in reality, it's no different from Serotta, IF and many others. They, too offer new models fairly regularly, with stainless steel now at the top. A few years back, Serotta bought out a CF manufacturer in (IIRC) CA and are now down to one (maybe two) steel models, so they follow trends like the others.

I think the bottom line with custom is the pride of ownership/ exclusivity that comes with it. Many of the bikes are classic works of art, with special paint/ tubing blends that make them one of a kind. But (assuming the fit is right) off the shelf bikes perform on a par, and at the lower end (Elites/ Comps, for example) at a fraction of the cost. 

It's all about choices, and in the end if it gets us out riding, there's isn't a wrong one.


----------



## roadworthy (Nov 11, 2011)

PJ352 said:


> *Not trying to nit pick, but aluminum actually is a soft, stiff material, resistant to bending, thus it's finite fatigue strength*. With every 'cycle' (meaning, impact) it's life cycle is shortened. This sounds much worse than it actually is, because as you stated (paraphrasing), alu frames are overbuilt to compensate.
> 
> IMO/E, for someone interested in retaining ride quality, steel is a close second to CF. But when on a budget, alu makes for a stiff, light race bike.


PJ, its ok to nitpick, but please be accurate if you do.  I believe we attended different engineering schools. Within the engineering community its pretty common knowledge that aluminum has 1/3 the modulus of elasticity, i.e. is three times more flexibile than steel and is over twice as flexible as carbon fiber. The reason why Aluminum bikes are generally stiffer than steel bikes is because of what I stated earlier...the quantity of material aka greater cross-section required for aluminum to be strong enough makes them stiffer. The reason why a greater volume of aluminum can be tolerated is because of its relatively low density i.e. light weight. Also many believe that steel is more flexible than a typical carbon matrix. Not so, carbon fiber is natively more flexible per unit area in cross-section. The reason why a carbon bike can be made much stiffer than steel is again the same dynamic as alumium. Carbon has a much greater stiffness to weight and strength ratio compared to both steel and aluminum.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

roadworthy said:


> PJ, its ok to nitpick, but please be accurate if you do.  I believe we attended different engineering schools. Within the engineering community its pretty common knowledge that aluminum has 1/3 the modulus of elasticity, i.e. is three times more flexibile than steel and is over twice as flexible as carbon fiber. The reason why Aluminum bikes are generally stiffer than steel bikes is because of what I stated earlier...the quantity of material aka greater cross-section required for aluminum to be strong enough makes them stiffer. The reason why a greater volume of aluminum can be tolerated is because of its relatively low density i.e. light weight. Also many believe that steel is more flexible than a typical carbon matrix. Not so, carbon fiber is natively more flexible per unit area in cross-section. The reason why a carbon bike can be made much stiffer than steel is again the same dynamic as alumium. Carbon has a much greater stiffness to weight and strength ratio compared to both steel and aluminum.


I previously acknowledged many of your points re: alu's stiffness/ weight characteristics. Where we differ is in the fact that aluminum is a brittle material resistant to bending, and this is fact. Even when overbuilt to compensate, with every 'cycle' (or impact) alu frames have one cycle less in their total life cycle, thus the* finite* fatigue limit. This differs from steel and CF in that impacts below their yield (strength) limit, don't shorten their life. 

Here are some sources that relate to my 'argument'. If you review them, you'll clearly see that alu has unique fatigue characteristics when compared to both CF and steel.
Fatigue (material) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bike 101-Frame Materials

Understanding Bike Frame Materials - Brightspoke


----------



## roadworthy (Nov 11, 2011)

PJ352 said:


> I previously acknowledged many of your points re: alu's stiffness/ weight characteristics. Where we differ is in the fact that aluminum is a brittle material resistant to bending, and this is fact. Even when overbuilt to compensate, with every 'cycle' (or impact) alu frames have one cycle less in their total life cycle, thus the* finite* fatigue limit. This differs from steel and CF in that impacts below their yield (strength) limit, don't shorten their life.
> 
> Here are some sources that relate to my 'argument'. If you review them, you'll clearly see that alu has unique fatigue characteristics when compared to both CF and steel.
> Fatigue (material) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> ...


Completely agree about the fatigue life of Al PJ. This can be proven with a beer can. But make no mistake per your previous post, Alumium is natively a flexible material with a finite fatigue life. Early CAAD Cannondales are a notable example. They dented by breathing on them. Carbon by contrast doesn't dent...twice as stiff...it cracks...lower fracture resistance....more precipitous yield point on stress/strain curve to be precise. For those interested, since an early large tube Al Cannondale has basically a down tube like one long beer can, take a beer can and cut a coupon. Very easy to flex...can do so simply by hand. To your point about fatigue life...spot on. Won't take many repetitions of flexing a beer can coupon to fatigue it to fracture. I just wanted to point out that stiffness and fatigue life are not the same thing.


----------



## Special Eyes (Feb 2, 2011)

I've been trying to learn what makes an S-Works different than the same named frame without the S-works logo. Same with the SL-2,3,4. Or both together!

I've finally concluded it's the paint job and the graphics. I've never found any actual descriptive differences published any where including Speciaized's own site and catalogs.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

roadworthy said:


> Completely agree about the fatigue life of Al PJ. This can be proven with a beer can. But make no mistake per your previous post, *Alumium is natively a flexible material *with a finite fatigue life. *Early CAAD Cannondales are a notable example. They dented by breathing on them*. *Carbon by contrast doesn't dent*...twice as stiff..*.it cracks*...lower fracture resistance....more precipitous yield point on stress/strain curve to be precise. For those interested, since an early large tube Al Cannondale has basically a down tube like one long beer can, take a beer can and cut a coupon. Very easy to flex...can do so simply by hand. To your point about fatigue life...spot on. Won't take many repetitions of flexing a beer can coupon to fatigue it to fracture. I just wanted to point out that stiffness and fatigue life are not the same thing.


You're confusing things here. Just because a material dents doesn't mean it's flexible. Rather, it _may_ mean it's soft, which I mentioned was a characteristic of alu - as is its resistance to bending. When its finite fatigue life is met, it hard fails (cracks), where steel has no such limit but will (normally) soft fail. 

That aside, you support the differences I mentioned by stating that CF doesn't dent, but cracks - similar to alu in that regard, but much more flexible in general, and having no finite fatigue limit. But the moral of the story is that all frame materials have differing characteristics and advantages and disadvantages for certain uses/ applications.

I'll leave our sub-discussion here because it's likely neither will change the others mind, and others have a wealth of info to form their own opinions.


----------



## skyler (Sep 3, 2008)

PJ352 said:


> You're confusing things here. Just because a material dents doesn't mean it's flexible. Rather, it _may_ mean it's soft, which I mentioned was a characteristic of alu - as is its resistance to bending. When its finite fatigue life is met, it hard fails (cracks), where steel has no such limit but will (normally) soft fail.
> 
> That aside, you support the differences I mentioned by stating that CF doesn't dent, but cracks - similar to alu in that regard, but much more flexible in general, and having no finite fatigue limit. But the moral of the story is that all frame materials have differing characteristics and advantages and disadvantages for certain uses/ applications.
> 
> I'll leave our sub-discussion here because it's likely neither will change the others mind, and others have a wealth of info to form their own opinions.


I think the reason for the confusion is yall are mixing up a bunch of properties of the materials. The stiffness or flexibility is proportional to the modulus of elasticity, whereas the tensile strength(point where permanent deformation occurs, or failure for carbon) is not dependent upon the stiffness. So a material such as alu can be more flexible than steel, but have a much lower tensile strength where permanent deformation, such as a dent. Also, the reason carbon doesnt dent is because it is brittle, so the tensile strength is also the point of failure, whereas a metal will only stretch at that point


----------



## new2rd (Aug 8, 2010)

Ummm, ok. I guess I wasn't really looking for an engineering lesson, but more factual. If a gun can shoot a 1 inch group at 1000 yards, but I'm using it to shoot a moose under 200 yards, is this gun better than one than can shoot a 3" group at 300 yards? In other words, who can notice the difference between these models.


----------



## skyler (Sep 3, 2008)

In general, for specialized the higher "r", the more stiffness and less weight. Also, the s-works models receive more attention to detail whenever they are being made.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

skyler said:


> I think the reason for the confusion is yall are mixing up a bunch of properties of the materials. The stiffness or flexibility is proportional to the modulus of elasticity, whereas the tensile strength(point where permanent deformation occurs, or failure for carbon) is not dependent upon the stiffness. So *a material such as alu can be more flexible than steel*, but have a much lower tensile strength where permanent deformation, such as a dent. Also, the reason carbon doesnt dent is because it is brittle, so the tensile strength is also the point of failure, whereas a metal will only stretch at that point


You might be right, but given that the discussion is general in nature and in the absence of controlled testing, IMO we're 'arguing' points about alu's characteristics - specifically the flexibility (or lack thereof) of the material. Also, since the topic is specific to bike frames, it has to be assumed that the theoretical frames being compared are designed for that specific purpose. If an alu frame were as (or more) flexible than a steel or CF frame, it would prematurely fail, which is actually part of my argument re: its properties/ characteristics. 

Within the confines of the above, I'm of the mind that there is a wealth of information supporting the argument that alu bike frames resist bending and have a finite fatigue limit. I've seen evidence of this. The other parallels/ examples provided (IMO provided by both RW and I) were merely used in the discussion and not meant literally. Since the three materials have differing characteristics, I don't see how literal parallels _could_ be made, or conclusions drawn from them.


----------



## skyler (Sep 3, 2008)

PJ352 said:


> You might be right, but given that the discussion is general in nature and in the absence of controlled testing, IMO we're 'arguing' points about alu's characteristics - specifically the flexibility (or lack thereof) of the material. Also, since the topic is specific to bike frames, it has to be assumed that the theoretical frames being compared are designed for that specific purpose. If an alu frame were as (or more) flexible than a steel or CF frame, it would prematurely fail, which is actually part of my argument re: its properties/ characteristics.
> 
> Within the confines of the above, I'm of the mind that there is a wealth of information supporting the argument that alu bike frames resist bending and have a finite fatigue limit. I've seen evidence of this. The other parallels/ examples provided (IMO provided by both RW and I) were merely used in the discussion and not meant literally. Since the three materials have differing characteristics, I don't see how literal parallels _could_ be made, or conclusions drawn from them.


I concur.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

new2rd said:


> Ummm, ok. * I guess I wasn't really looking for an engineering lesson, but more factual.* If a gun can shoot a 1 inch group at 1000 yards, but I'm using it to shoot a moose under 200 yards, is this gun better than one than can shoot a 3" group at 300 yards? * In other words, who can notice the difference between these models*.


Some of your OP was related to engineering. Some was purely subjective. Thus, the responses (albeit, with a tangent or two).

IMO the only person that's going to notice differences as subtle as 10r versus 11r or SL3 versus SL4 are riders putting out more wattage than us mere mortals. In other words, some pro's.


----------



## Special Eyes (Feb 2, 2011)

new2rd said:


> Ummm, ok. I guess I wasn't really looking for an engineering lesson, but more factual. If a gun can shoot a 1 inch group at 1000 yards, but I'm using it to shoot a moose under 200 yards, is this gun better than one than can shoot a 3" group at 300 yards? In other words, who can notice the difference between these models.


You would shoot a moose?? That's the most disgusting thing I've heard around here. I'll never go on a bike ride with you.


----------



## rbart4506 (Aug 4, 2004)

new2rd said:


> Ummm, ok. I guess I wasn't really looking for an engineering lesson, but more factual. If a gun can shoot a 1 inch group at 1000 yards, but I'm using it to shoot a moose under 200 yards, is this gun better than one than can shoot a 3" group at 300 yards? In other words, who can notice the difference between these models.


I will use my example...

2008 Tarmac Expert (8r I believe) and 2010 Tarmac Expert (10r)...

I own both, do I notice a difference...YES...

2010 tracks much better when sprinting and does not transfer as much road chatter through the frame...Much more comfortable bike to ride...

Both bikes have been ridden with the exact same wheels (swapped between bikes)...

For this reason, next fall I shall be upgrading...

i will probably sell the 2008 Tarmac to help fund the new purchase...


----------



## GeneT (Feb 17, 2008)

*A few thoughts on the posts*

_“and (supposed) more compliant ride.”_
I really don’t care much about the 50 grams but if they managed to give it a better fatigue life and greater vertical compliance, that would get my attention.

_“ ultimately I concluded that there's no way I'm paying that kind of money for something made in Taiwan and will be made obsolete and lose prolly 2/3 of its value in 2 years.”_
It pains me to say it but I have been reliably told since going overseas Cannondales frame have gotten better.

I don’t see how it’s possible for a new carbon frame bike not to take a big hit in value immediately after purchase (and registration). Companies lifetime warranties and warranties in general aren’t transferable, Calfee being an exception but not a painless one. The most expensive single component is the frame and I have seen far too many used bikes sell for a price that exceeds my risk / reward level for giving up a potential lifetime frame warranty. 

The incidence rate of frame cracks may be relatively low compared to the number bikes in use but carbon frame cracks can be hard to detect and it’s an all or nothing proposition, if you loose, you loose big. Now lifetime warranties tend to have plenty of holes if you read them cover to cover, i.e. Cannondale’s has a statement about “excessive use”, whatever that is exactly but regardless I’ve found in talking with the mechanics that most manufactures stand behind there lifetime warranties pretty well as long as the bike has been well cared for and belongs to the original owner.

Regardless of which way I go, build or buy complete I will include my LBS in some part or all of the process. I am more than willing to give them some profit so I have an advocate in the case of a frame problem. The dealer gives business to the rep. who is the front for handling warranty problems, it is more likely he will flexible with the dealer due to the repeat nature of the business.

_“I'm not sure why people expect a bike to hold value after riding the hell out of it for 5000-6000 miles anyways.”_
Hold value no (per the above) but I’m with the others in that 5,000 miles is nothing. I have well over 22,000 on my Klein and no expectation that it will die anytime soon. $5K for a bike to go about 1 to 1 ½ years would be a pretty poor investment.

_“1 month ago, they called back and told me now I can have an SL4 Tarmac Pro for $3700 + tax” _
Hmmm, 1300 or 1400 miles is close enough to be a LBS isn’t it? What was their name (lol)!

_“Where we differ is in the fact that aluminum is a brittle material resistant to bending, and this is fact. Even when overbuilt to compensate, with every 'cycle' (or impact) alu frames have one cycle less in their total life cycle, thus the finite fatigue limit.”_
All very true but that is why they make alloys such as used by Klein and passed to Trek, to improve fatigue and impact resistance. Not to pick on Cannondale I just happen to be the most familiar with their documentation but if fatigue wasn’t a factor for carbon, they wouldn’t explicitly exclude fatigue in their warranty.

Regarding Bike Ride Quality. I’m sure all those posting would agree what ever a frame feels like change the wheelset and it will be different. To any relatively new riders reading this if you have a moderately good bike (with a modest wheelset) and think you need a better bike, work at getting a better wheelset to try first. Try several different wheelsets in the same price range, they are all different. You might just save a few thousand dollars and be happy for the next couple of years. I've been through two wheelset upgrades on the klein and each was better then the first. Now I'm looking for the next leg up and that potentially being the SL4, I was referred to this thread in the process of hunting up information. Thanks for all the great thoughts posted!


----------



## The Mountaineer (Nov 11, 2010)

I was not going to explain, but I will since a few people have quoted me. I currently have 5500 miles on my Tarmac Pro 08. The remark was not referring to the durability of the frame/bike. I am stating that I would not expect to get much money for my bike on a resale.

I have raced the bike and ridden it in the rain throughout the years. There are scratches, cable rubs, multiple repairs, and dings all over the bike.

If I were in the market for a used carbon fiber bike I would not buy a bike with a similar history as mine. I conclude that my bike has little value.

My bike is not an investment; I have no intent to make any profit.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

GeneT said:


> _“and (supposed) more compliant ride.”_
> I really don’t care much about the 50 grams but* if they managed to give it a better fatigue life and greater vertical compliance, that would get my attention.*
> 
> _“ ultimately I concluded that there's no way I'm paying that kind of money for something made in Taiwan and will be made obsolete and lose prolly 2/3 of its value in 2 years.”_
> ...


I think your post is 99% spot-on, but some thoughts on the bold statements....

In the never ending quest for weight reduction, it's unlikely you'll see positive changes in fatigue life or durability of any of the popular frame materials. IME ride compliance (or vertical compliance) is highly subjective and influenced by a myriad of factors, so my advice would always be to ride and decide for oneself.

Re: alloy mixes, while it's true that magnesium-scandium-aluminum mixes have been employed to enhance aluminum's lightness and strength, they haven't markedly changed it's inherent characteristics nor it's finite fatigue limit.

I'm not familiar with C'dales warranty terms, but if they mention CF's fatigue life, I think it would be in terms of it's life cycle. Specialized does similarly, simply because nothing lasts forever (so the lawyers want you to know that, upfront), but CF (and steel) don't fatigue the same way as aluminum alloys. 

Re: the wheelset comment and it's effects on ride, I agree and would add other variables, such as tire construction, size and f/r pressure.


----------



## GeneT (Feb 17, 2008)

_In the never ending quest for weight reduction, it's unlikely you'll see positive changes in fatigue life or durability... _
You can always hope for the best.

_Re: alloy mixes, while it's true that magnesium-scandium-aluminum mixes have been employed to enhance aluminum's lightness and strength, they haven't markedly changed it's inherent characteristics nor it's finite fatigue limit._
Perhaps but according to a LBS that sold Klein, the lead mechanic said he had never seen a Klein with cracked frame, not quite the same with carbon. 

_I'm not familiar with C'dales warranty terms, but if they mention CF's fatigue life, I think it would be in terms of it's life cycle. Specialized does similarly, simply because nothing lasts forever (so the lawyers want you to know that, upfront), but CF (and steel) don't fatigue the same way as aluminum alloys. 

No disagreement. From the Cannodale warranty statement... 
"Damage resulting from normal wear and tear, including the results of fatigue, is not covered. Fatigue damage is a symptom of the frame being worn out through normal use."
----
This limited warranty is void if the bicycle is subjected to abuse, neglect, improper repair, improper maintenance, alteration, modification, an accident or other abnormal, *excessive, or improper use.**
I emailed Cannondale and asked what under normal circumstance the expected life cycle of an Evo was and what excessive use meant, I didn't receive a reply, even though per the link below..

url=http://www.cannondale.com/supersixevo]SuperSix EVO[/url]
"THE ULTRA-LIGHT EVO OUTPERFORMS MOST ALUMINUM FRAMES IN DESTRUCTIVE AND FATIGUE TESTS. EVO IS EVEN STRONGER THAN THE LEGENDARIlY TOUGH CAAD9. Optimized BallisTec carbon construction – The ultimate blend of light weight, stiffness and strength
It may be a futile hope but I'd like to see the warranty statement and the hype find a common middle ground.

**Re: the wheelset comment and it's effects on ride, I agree and would add other variables, such as tire construction, size and f/r pressure.*_*
Spot on! I've ridden a number of test bikes lately and had the LBS swap wheels for comparison, i.e. the Cervelo R3 absorbed road vibration but performance was hampered by the Fulcrum 7 wheelset, when Ksyruims Elites from the Evo were swapped in, at least 1/2 the performance difference between the two bikes evaporated, as did some of the absorption qualities. 
I thought the Evo was a bit harsh and the LBS was kind enough to mount up my personal ROL wheelset for comparison which weighs virtually the same as the Elites but is more compliant and uses my normal GP 4000's, as compared to the Ksyriums with Schwalbe ZX Ultremo's. By the reviews I've read the ZX is a great riding tire with durability concerns, hence I would never use them. 
In all case I've been asking on the test rides for the tire pressure to be set the same, at 105 to make a reasonable comparison and to have a little upside and down side to adjust from if the quality of the ride feel dictates an additional test ride.

(sorry if the post comes up with some text in italics that shouldn''t be, it didn't want to go away)*


----------



## roadworthy (Nov 11, 2011)

PJ352 said:


> You're confusing things here. Just because a material dents doesn't mean it's flexible. Rather, it _may_ mean it's soft, which I mentioned was a characteristic of alu - as is its resistance to bending. When its finite fatigue life is met, it hard fails (cracks), where steel has no such limit but will (normally) soft fail.
> 
> That aside, you support the differences I mentioned by stating that CF doesn't dent, but cracks - similar to alu in that regard, but much more flexible in general, and having no finite fatigue limit. But the moral of the story is that all frame materials have differing characteristics and advantages and disadvantages for certain uses/ applications.
> 
> I'll leave our sub-discussion here because it's likely neither will change the others mind, and others have a wealth of info to form their own opinions.


I tried to give you an exit to what you wrote because you know a fair amount about bikes and I enjoy what you write. But you are flat wrong about aluminum. I am a mechanical engineer and have worked in product development for 25 years. I have designed many aluminum parts and used FEA extensively to do it. I know a lot about strength of materials and design. I provided the hard numbers to support what I stated. Aluminum is 3X's more flexibile that steel and twice as flexible as carbon fiber in cross-section. It is you who are confusing things. Softness or what is typically referred to a Rockwell harness and can be measured has nothing to do with modulus of elasticity or the technical parameter for material flexibility. Either does fatigue life you mention They are separate properties and should be treated as such when discussed. I also stated why Aluminum bikes tend to be stiffer than Steel bikes and almost as stiff as Carbon bikes. This is perhaps the foundational misunderstood aspect of bicycle frame design. How a flexible material like Aluminum can turn into such a stiff bike. It is because of the ratio of flexibility to weight, including yield strength that allows Aluminum to be stiffer than a steel bike for close to the same weight and perhaps be even lighter and stiffer. This leads many to conclude like yourself that Aluminum is a stiff material. The converse is true. Aluminum is a flexible material. This is the reason why Aluminum bikes have much larger tubes than steel bikes. Eqiivalent tubes of Aluminum and steel will cause Aluminum to bend easier with the same load. This is why Aluminum bikes have large tubes. They can be made larger with thinner material thickness because of the lightness of Aluminum. A steel bike constructed like an Aluminum bike would weigh twice as much and be 3X's as stiff. Afore mentioned is rarely understood by the layperson. The same analogy exists relative to Carbon fiber which is natively more flexible albeit not a lot more than carbon steel. Carbon bikes tend to be much stiffer than steel bikes because of their superior yield strength and flexibility to weight ratio. I just want to set the record straight because that is the reality and rarely understood.


----------



## new2rd (Aug 8, 2010)

Thanks for all the information. I think most would agree after reading this, that:
#1. The rider must notice the differences to make it worth paying extra for S Works or Pro.
#2. There are many variables that will affect the perceived differences between models (wheels, tires, pressures, saddle, bars, grip tape, etc..)

Looking at all this information. The best test is to drive to your LBS and put your current wheels and saddle on a different bike. This would be the closest you could get to isolating the differences. The only problem I can see is that if you are a powerhorse capable of flexing frames, the crank on the test bike might give you some false data. However, I doubt anyone would put all your components on a new frame for you to try out. That's the problem with test riding. I can go into my LBS and try a Tarmac Expert, Tarmac Pro, and possibly an S Works model. Since they all have different components, it's tough to gauge the difference between an SL3 or SL4. The human mind also throws a curve ball in there. If you want to like something (i.e. for status reasons, frame color, weight reduction, etc..) your mind will tell you it's better. Very tricky.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

GeneT said:


> _...according to a LBS that sold Klein, the lead mechanic said he had never seen a Klein with cracked frame, not quite the same with carbon.
> _


_
Not doubting your wrenches experiences, but barring a crash (and generally speaking) frame failures are due to (poor) quality of manufacture or defects, not fatigue. My point re: alloy 'mixes' is that the inherent characteristic of aluminum (having a finite fatigue limit) still exists, not that the material(s) are some how inferior to another (like steel or CF), or that they'll suffer more frequent or earlier failures.



GeneT said:



I emailed Cannondale and asked what under normal circumstance the expected life cycle of an Evo was and what excessive use meant, I didn't receive a reply, even though per the link below..

url=http://www.cannondale.com/supersixevo]SuperSix EVO[/url]
"THE ULTRA-LIGHT EVO OUTPERFORMS MOST ALUMINUM FRAMES IN DESTRUCTIVE AND FATIGUE TESTS. EVO IS EVEN STRONGER THAN THE LEGENDARIlY TOUGH CAAD9. Optimized BallisTec carbon construction – The ultimate blend of light weight, stiffness and strength
It may be a futile hope but I'd like to see the warranty statement and the hype find a common middle ground.

Click to expand...

Wow, and people say that Specialized has slick marketing...  

Without an independent study, I don't think you'll find that 'middle ground' with most any company. 



GeneT said:



I've ridden a number of test bikes lately and had the LBS swap wheels for comparison, i.e. the Cervelo R3 absorbed road vibration but performance was hampered by the Fulcrum 7 wheelset, when Ksyruims Elites from the Evo were swapped in, at least 1/2 the performance difference between the two bikes evaporated, as did some of the absorption qualities. 
I thought the Evo was a bit harsh and the LBS was kind enough to mount up my personal ROL wheelset for comparison which weighs virtually the same as the Elites but is more compliant and uses my normal GP 4000's, as compared to the Ksyriums with Schwalbe ZX Ultremo's. By the reviews I've read the ZX is a great riding tire with durability concerns, hence I would never use them. 
In all case I've been asking on the test rides for the tire pressure to be set the same, at 105 to make a reasonable comparison and to have a little upside and down side to adjust from if the quality of the ride feel dictates an additional test ride.

Click to expand...

You're being very thorough in your research/ test rides, which is smart. But as new2rd points out, there are still enough variables to make the buying decision difficult. Many can separate the head (bike fits, rides and handles well) versus heart (gee, I really like that color, maybe I can make it fit!) issues, but to some extent we all buy into a company when we buy their products, so... many factors at play._


----------



## GeneT (Feb 17, 2008)

_You're being very thorough in your research/ test rides, which is smart. But as new2rd points out, there are still enough variables to make the buying decision difficult. _

How ture that is! I'll add a couple more, geometry, agressive vs. relaxed and best fit for intended use. I rode a Scott Addict R1 which I would have loved for the spints and hill climbs but not so much for distance. The warranty was less then hopped for too, 5 years with annual inspections, 3 years without.... but oh to have an endless pile of cash, variety is the spice of life.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

GeneT said:


> _You're being very thorough in your research/ test rides, which is smart. But as new2rd points out, there are still enough variables to make the buying decision difficult. _
> 
> How ture that is! I'll add a couple more, geometry, agressive vs. relaxed and best fit for intended use. I rode a Scott Addict R1 which I would have loved for the spints and hill climbs but not so much for distance. The warranty was less then hopped for too, 5 years with annual inspections, 3 years without.... but oh to have an endless pile of cash, variety is the spice of life.


Yes, geometry is another big player. Affects handling, but also ride depending on ST/ HT angles, trail, wheelbase (among other factors).

Good catch on Scott's warranty. A lot of buyers don't realize that there are fairly large differences between some brands. Trek (as one example) is well known for a strong warranty, but few realize that while their frames carry a limited lifetime warranty, their forks are only warrantied for 5 years.

I think test rides are fun, but I took my time when I was shopping for a new ride. Cycling is important to me and I tend to keep my bike awhile, so I needed to get it right.


----------



## TheBarista (Jul 11, 2011)

rbart4506 said:


> I will use my example...
> 
> 2008 Tarmac Expert (8r I believe) and 2010 Tarmac Expert (10r)...
> 
> ...


I can vouch for these statements. I had (until recently) a 2008 Tarmac Elite, with Durace wheels, and while nice, it cannot hold a candle to the upper level 2012 Tarmac. I have ridden a 2012 Tarmac Expert, and that thing is 10000000 times more stiff than my 2008 Tarmac, plus it is much MUCH lighter. My old Tarmac's fork would flex fore to aft when I would ride on rough surfaces or descend rough roads. The 2012 Tarmac does none of that and is a MUCH better descender. 

I am no engineer, nor am I an experienced roadie, but I can certainly tell a substantial difference between those two frames.


----------



## TheBarista (Jul 11, 2011)

new2rd said:


> Thanks for all the information. I think most would agree after reading this, that:
> #1. The rider must notice the differences to make it worth paying extra for S Works or Pro.
> #2. There are many variables that will affect the perceived differences between models (wheels, tires, pressures, saddle, bars, grip tape, etc..)
> 
> Looking at all this information. The best test is to drive to your LBS and put your current wheels and saddle on a different bike. This would be the closest you could get to isolating the differences. The only problem I can see is that if you are a powerhorse capable of flexing frames, the crank on the test bike might give you some false data. However, I doubt anyone would put all your components on a new frame for you to try out. That's the problem with test riding. I can go into my LBS and try a Tarmac Expert, Tarmac Pro, and possibly an S Works model. Since they all have different components, it's tough to gauge the difference between an SL3 or SL4. The human mind also throws a curve ball in there. If you want to like something (i.e. for status reasons, frame color, weight reduction, etc..) your mind will tell you it's better. Very tricky.


I am in for an SL4 Pro, but again, I am coming from an 08 Tarmac Elite, so I am going to notice a huge difference between the two bikes. I just rode a 2012 Tarmac Expert (as noted above) and really enjoyed it. I think I am going to notice the weight difference between the Tarmac Expert and the Tarmac SL4 Pro. The Pro is supposed to be stiffer, but I havent ridden one yet so I cannot say. Hopefully next week I will be able to report back if my bike gets built up (waiting for SRAM Red Groupo). I truly think the best value to be had (if you are spending the money) is to go with the SL4 Pro over the SWerxy.


----------



## tommyturbo (Jan 24, 2002)

Here we go again with the engineering jargon and arguments. To get back to the original poster's question, perhaps you do "get what you paid for" when you go to the 11r/S-Works level, but we really are living in the land of diminishing returns. Today's bikes (and particularly the excellent Specialized bikes) are so good that incremental improvements are getting harder and harder to come by.

In other words, it's hard to separate the marketing from the reality. According to people at Specialized I have talked with (and who would actually know), even top level pros with huge power outputs can no longer feel bottom bracket stiffness increases from minor model changes, etc.

I have loved all of my S-Works bikes, but do I expect to get faster on the newest model? Of course not, just like you can't buy a golf game with fancy equipment. I say look at it like a marriage. Buy the bike that you fall in love with. Isn't that the most important thing?


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

tommyturbo said:


> Here we go again with the engineering jargon and arguments.
> 
> ....Buy the bike that you fall in love with. Isn't that the most important thing?


lol c'mon man admit it it's at least entertaining to read them! Can you imagine if somehow there was a device that you could strap onto a frame and it would spit out a "stiffness index" number on an LCD?? The only noise you'd hear around here is chirping crickets 

I agree with the "buy what you love" sentiment!


----------



## purdyd (Jun 18, 2010)

PJ352 said:


> Not trying to nit pick, but aluminum actually is a soft, stiff material, resistant to bending, thus it's finite fatigue strength. With every 'cycle' (meaning, impact) it's life cycle is shortened. This sounds much worse than it actually is, because as you stated (paraphrasing), alu frames are overbuilt to compensate.
> 
> IMO/E, for someone interested in retaining ride quality, steel is a close second to CF. But when on a budget, alu makes for a stiff, light race bike.


Just to wade in here because I am stupid 

But you guys are mixing up elasticity and flexibility/stiffness

But a given diving board made aluminum or steel that are the same dimensions will deflect more made out aluminum vice steel with the same person standing on the end - about three times more

however, if you were to make the diving boards the same weight, and keep the length and wdith the same, the aluminum one would be three times thicker and the steel diving board would deflect 9 times more (i hope i did that math right......)

on the other hand, if you were to take that diving board and stand it on end, and then stand on top, the deflection would be the same

did you ever notice the density to Young's modulus ratio for metals is all the same?

Composites break that paradigm

And it is more precise to say aluminum is more brittle than stell and has no fatigue limit

so now some fat guy goes out on the end of the diving boards and puts enough force on the end to start deformig, that steel diving board can deform more before breaking

and if some little skinny girls goes out and jumps up and down on the aluminum board eventually it will fail (fatigue) no matter how light where if she is light enough (below fatigue limit) it will last a lifetime 

all things being equal i would say off the top of my head that steel bikes would last longer, however, I recall seeing a frame cyclic loading test and the aluminum bikes all survived 300K cycles and most of the steel bikes did not

I chalk that up to superior engineering and what the companies are doing with aluminum is truly outstanding

11r 10r carbon? it's a hobby and you aint getting any younger, get what you want and can afford

i know it would be nice to ride every bike on a century but not really practical and by the time you were done, the new bikes would be out!

and in regards to frames, i was surprised how different they handled and felt when I was last trying things out


----------



## new2rd (Aug 8, 2010)

I wish I had an extra pile of cash laying around for a SL4 Pro, but for now I'll just keep saving up. I agree that the fit, geometry, and comfort (subjective based on stiffness, tracking, road feel, and countless other attributes) are the #1 goal. But, how many of us really have the ability to find the perfect bike? Going into the manufactures forums in this site, everyone would say that their bike is the greatest. I don't have the ability to try 37 different frames nor do I have the time, so we consumers have to rely on the manufactures marketing and consumer reviews.


----------



## new2rd (Aug 8, 2010)

Rugergundog said:


> Dude, your reading way too much into it.
> 
> 
> 
> So will you notice the diffy in 10R and 11R...prob not. But can you tell the SL4 is different than the SL3...sure can.


Ok, for those of you that say there's a difference. Can you elaborate? Buying something new and feeling a difference is not too hard, but having that difference be worth the investment 6 month later when the newness wears off is.. priceless?


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

purdyd said:


> *Just to wade in here because I am stupid *
> 
> But you guys are mixing up elasticity and flexibility/stiffness
> 
> ...


One persons 'stupid' is anothers 'brave'. 

However, I disagree with you on more than one count, but agree on another. 

IMO as the discussion evolved, by necessity it expanded to modulus of elasticity, yield strength, et al, but my one and only point made in response to RW's post was that aluminum has a finite fatigue limit, which (ironically) we both agreed on. This is fact, and if you doubt it I'll refer you to the sources I posted previously. 

My other points were that alu is a soft, brittle material, resistant to bending. RW took that to mean 'not flexible', but I never said that. I acknowledged that it was more flexible (and lower in strength) with my example to skyler comparing an alu and steel frame built the same. The alu frame would prematurely fail, because if its comparably lower strength. 

Last thought. While it's true that the sub-discussion strayed from the literal of the OP's question, given that it related to bike frame materials/ characteristics, I wouldn't say it was off-topic. Also, a number of facets to cycling are related to engineering, so while I agree that the bottom line is 'ride a bike, then decide', some cyclists have an interest/ curiosity to dig a little deeper into some areas, like geometry and bike fit. If others don't then that's their choice, but this being an open forum, both (IMHO) should show a level of tolerance for the other.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

new2rd said:


> I wish I had an extra pile of cash laying around for a SL4 Pro, but for now I'll just keep saving up. I agree that the fit, geometry, and comfort (subjective based on stiffness, tracking, road feel, and countless other attributes) are the #1 goal. But, how many of us really have the ability to find the perfect bike? Going into the manufactures forums in this site, everyone would say that their bike is the greatest. I don't have the ability to try 37 different frames nor do I have the time, so we consumers have to rely on the manufactures marketing and consumer reviews.


FWIW, generally speaking, I think your posts here show a lot of insight, but I disagree with your conclusion.

Consumers should research, utilizing many sources, including manufacturers documentation (basically, marketing), talking with other cyclists/ LBS's and reading consumer reviews. But while doing so, read between the lines because with some practice, you can sift through the information, deciding which source has a level of objectivity, which does not, and just what info is relevant/ important to you. Even in this thread, that's fairly easily accomplished. All you have to ask yourself is... can this statement be substantiated? Or, is it purely subjective. As you say (paraphrasing) ride/ handling characteristics tend to be mostly subjective, and based on rider experiences/ preferences (among other factors). 

The goal isn't for you to find MY perfect bike, it's to find YOUR perfect bike. So the person who writes a few lines embellishing on the marketing hype that can be read on the manufacturers website probably isn't going to help you much. Going on a few test rides, focusing on some of the things you mentioned above will (IME) go a long way in helping you whittle the field.


----------



## GeneT (Feb 17, 2008)

Nice catch on the Trek warranty. Due to the time of year and limited inventory in local dealers I haven't found a Madone 6.x in my size to test ride and haven't read their warranty statement. 

A benefit to having ridden for quit a few years as I'm sure you and many here have done, is having enough experience to realize what can be easily modified and what is critical to the initial purchase. Still there is always something new to learn and it's great to have these discussions.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

GeneT said:


> Nice catch on the Trek warranty. Due to the time of year and limited inventory in local dealers I haven't found a Madone 6.x in my size to test ride and haven't read their warranty statement.
> 
> *A benefit to having ridden for quit a few years as I'm sure you and many here have done, is having enough experience to realize what can be easily modified and what is critical to the initial purchase.* Still there is always something new to learn and it's great to have these discussions.


Absolutely true. Experience is invaluable and forums like this contain a collective wealth of knowledge.

Agree on their always being new things to learn. Manufacturers see to it that bike technology 'evolves'.


----------



## purdyd (Jun 18, 2010)

PJ352 said:


> One persons 'stupid' is anothers 'brave'.
> 
> However, I disagree with you on more than one count, but agree on another.
> 
> ...


you can disagree with my opinions but the examples i gave engineering wise are true

yes, all metals are subject to fatigue failures

for steel as long as the stress is below the fatigue limit it will not fail in fatigue or so the theory goes (i actually read something the other day that said there is a fatigue limit for all materials)

Fatigue limit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

however, aluminum does NOT have a fatigue limit so no matter how small the load, it will eventually fail, that might be several life times but it will happen

if that is your point, you are correct

yes, aluminum is relatively brittle compared with steel
is relatively soft compared with steel - measured by indenting the material with a known shape with a known force

it is NOT resistant to bending anymore or less than steel - it will bend just fine

given that it is the same shape as steel, it will bend three times as much under the same load

that is because the modulus of elasticity or Young's modulus (aka spring constant for physics majors) of aluminum is 1/3 that of steel

so if you make a bicycle out of aluminum exactly like a steel bike, the aluminum bike will flex more, will not be as strong, and be 1/3 the weight

so if you are willing to take advantage of that, you can make oversized tubes shapes that will be stiffer than the smaller sized steel tubes because stiffness increases as a cube of the radius but for a thin tube, weight only increases directly as the radius increases so they will also be lighter

but wait you say, you can do the same thing with steel, that is make oversized tubing that will be just as strong in tension/compressions and bending!

Of course to make it the same weight you will have to make the wall thickness 1/3 that of aluminum and that becomes a problem because you run into two problems

buckling and especially denting (not hardness) and both of these are better with thicker walls but especially denting


----------



## jnbrown (Dec 9, 2009)

skyler said:


> In general, for specialized the higher "r", the more stiffness and less weight. Also, the s-works models receive more attention to detail whenever they are being made.


When I was test riding bikes last year I tried a S-Works SL3 and really liked it. I knew I was going to get an SL3 frameset after that but wasn't sure if I should get the pro or spend $1000 more an S-Works. I did test a Pro a few days later, but with the passage of time and different components and different roads it was not obvious if there was a difference. I spoke with somebody at Specialized CS and the quote above is what they told me. They also told me that S-Works uses pitch fibers in certain areas which are expensive and difficult to work with and the ride would be smoother. I decided to go with the S-Works since I felt at least from a design and manufacturing standpoint there was a difference worth $1000 to me and I expected to keep the bike indefinitely.
It is disappointing that a short time later Specialized announced the SL4 saying that things like the SL4 Pro is better than the SL3 S-Works. I still love my SL3 and plan on keeping it, I can't afford to be constantly "upgrading" and doubt it would make a meaningful difference.


----------



## tommyturbo (Jan 24, 2002)

Lesson 101: Focus on bike fit first and get that right. A perfect fitting average bike is better than an average fitting perfect bike.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

purdyd said:


> ...aluminum does NOT have a fatigue limit so *no matter how small the load, it will eventually fail, that might be several life times but it will happen*


The definition of *finite* is _having bounds or limits; not infinite; measurable._ 

The definition of *fatigue* is _the weakening or breakdown of material subjected to stress, especially a repeated series of stresses._

You may not like the term *finite fatigue*, but you're defining it.

The principles of remainder of your post have already been thoroughly discussed, so I see no point in revisiting.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

tommyturbo said:


> Lesson 101: Focus on bike fit first and get that right. A perfect fitting average bike is better than an average fitting perfect bike.


Absolutely. Fit comes first. :thumbsup:


----------



## ronderman (May 17, 2010)

I read this whole thing. Wow.

Here is what I will add:

There is a guy we ride with - every year, without exception he gets a new specialized. Every. Year.

There is another guy who has a CAAD 9 from 2009.

The guy with the CAAD 9 totally and utterly kicks the A$$ of the guy on the SL3/SL4 - in fact, just like you KNOW the one guy will buy a new specialized, you know the guy with CAAD 9 will kick his A$$.

Just saying . . . . . .


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

ronderman said:


> I read this whole thing. Wow.
> 
> Here is what I will add:
> 
> ...


So... what's your point? It's about the 'motor'/ bike/ frame material? (serious question)


----------



## purdyd (Jun 18, 2010)

PJ352 said:


> The definition of *finite* is _having bounds or limits; not infinite; measurable._
> 
> The definition of *fatigue* is _the weakening or breakdown of material subjected to stress, especially a repeated series of stresses._
> 
> ...


The problem is that fatigue limit has a precise definition and aluminum does not have a fatigue limit finite or otherwise

Fatigue limit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Fatigue is failure do to cyclical stress, not just stress or especially repeated stress

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatigue_(material)

And aluminum does not resist bending more than steel


----------



## ronderman (May 17, 2010)

PJ352 said:


> So... what's your point? It's about the 'motor'/ bike/ frame material? (serious question)


My point is I can tell the difference between a CAAD 9 and a SL3. I maybe sorta can tell the difference between a SL2 and a SL4. I am certainly tell the difference between shimano, SRAM and Campy.

Are any of these bikes going to make me go faster or ride faster - not for a second.

Could a Greg LeMond circa 1989 at the worlds in total torrential rain with his steel bike and quill stem out descend every single person on this board - YES.

My point is bikes have hit line of diminishing improvement for decades. Each year these improvements get less and less and even at the pro level have improvement than any bike manufacturer would lead you to believe. The big 3 or 4 are the worst, but the entire industry plays along.

LeMonds quickest TT stood for how long? Merckx hour record stood for how long and the specialist beat it by barely anything (once they made people adopt a regular bike).

So, yea, if you want to argue the difference between aluminum and carbon - go for it. I think Cunego won the giro on a CAAD 8 and Cav out sprints lots of guys with his carbon. If you want to buy multiple bikes - so be it, if you want to buy the latest and greatest and you can tell without question a SL2 is better than an SL4 - whatever.

But understand this, a inexpensive used Cannondale CAAD 8 with 105 - you will go JUST as fast.


----------



## ronderman (May 17, 2010)

By the way, I"ll also add this - love riding my 2002 Merckx TEAM SC in domo livery. Love it. It also has a wicked big dent on the top tube from the previous owner - handle bar hit top tube thingy.

Still riding the bike, big dent and all.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

ronderman said:


> My point is I can tell the difference between a CAAD 9 and a SL3. I maybe sorta can tell the difference between a SL2 and a SL4. I am certainly tell the difference between shimano, SRAM and Campy.
> 
> Are any of these bikes going to make me go faster or ride faster - not for a second.
> 
> ...


You make a good point regarding diminishing return. I don't have a historical list of results of the Tour de France. But I do remember some poster discussing them in the Doping Forum. Basically, the results show that riders have been riding faster and faster on successive year (but it still is not a big jump), except in the last couple years when they actually slowed down. We can definitely assume that the slow down was due to subpar bikes, but due to more stringent doping enforcement. 

The above cyclists are top cyclists in the world pushing their equipment to the limit, where "stiffness" means much more to them than weekend racer (most of us). And these pro's are often doped up so they can push their body harder, which means they push their equipment harder than otherwise would have been able to.

Your typical weekend racer, criterium boy, ain't gonna come anywhere close to pushing their equipment like them doped up pros. But reading this forum, and the Trek forum, it looks like guys are asking questions about SL3 versus and SL4 as if they can REALLY take advantage of such miniscule margin.

If you want to talk about the technology, about the engineering, the frame design, go ahead, it's fun to read about them. But guys should be consumed about such thing when they buy a bike, yet this is what the sentiments seem to indicate. I notice it's the younger guys just getting it the sport who are obsessed about frame stiffness. But the older guys who have been riding for a while tend to be like "get the bike you love, and go ride".


----------



## roadworthy (Nov 11, 2011)

ronderman said:


> My point is I can tell the difference between a CAAD 9 and a SL3. I maybe sorta can tell the difference between a SL2 and a SL4. I am certainly tell the difference between shimano, SRAM and Campy.
> 
> Are any of these bikes going to make me go faster or ride faster - not for a second.
> 
> ...


Agree. But there is more than speed when it comes to road biking. There is comfort with speed...including injury avoidance. A stiff and rough riding bike...I live in the midwest with marginal roads, is real hard on aging wrists like mine. I just built the latest Roubaix Pro SL3. I don't think its faster than my Look...will know more in the spring. But...as great as the Look has been with 6 year old carbon technology, perhaps the most neutral bike in handling I have owned and a softer front end than the Roubaix...mostly due to straight head tube...the Roubaix absorbs bad road surfaces better. The Look would put your buddies' CAAD to shame on vibration damping...but as you say...not on speed. CAAD bikes are great speed machines. But if riding a century, I know I would feel a hell of lot better after 80 miles on the Roubaix versus the CAAD. Btw, the new CAAD10 is a hell of bike...with vibration damping approaching carbon...not as good, but close and for the $$$ perhaps the best value crit bike out there. Cannondale knows how to build a Al bike for sure.

Most that have raced even recreationally know that the engine trumps the chassis when it comes to bikes so no surprise about your friend beating up on your other buddy with the latest Specialized...former is just a fast guy on a fast bike.

As to improving the breed, technology marchs on. Ask anybody that owned an early Roubaix with 6r carbon and compare it to a new one. It is a noodle by comparison with light front end and relatively poor acceleration. Latest Roubaixs are a different world, ride, handling and energy transfer. Granted, the increments are getting smaller over time.. A pro on a light steel bike is still gonna dust anybody here on the lightest Venge or SL4 Tarmac...no mistaking that. But lets take the SL4 Tarmac. For the SL3, Specialized answered the bell and provided an uber stiff bike some would say at the deficit to ride comfort which matters to some. The SL4 is said to be a more comfortable bike and yet be laterally 18% stiffer...latter likely not felt by the average guy but the softer vertical flex would sure be welcome. The stiffness resulting from a shorter wheelbase Tarmac with more upright angles is why many including me prefer the Roubaix. In an ideal world, I would like Roubaix ride and Tarmac handling but the two are related and so opt for the ride of the Roubaix. So again for some including me who ride half centuries routinely, speed is important but not the be all and ability to ride the bike a long way and not be beat up is perhaps more important.

My thought is...if the average guy wants a nice bike with a good ride and how he wants to spend his money and he will ride alot because he is comfortable and frequent riding promotes a lower body weight resulting in a longer and healthier life...why not?:wink5: 

PS: below is great review of the Roubaix SL3 which Specialized released in 2011 and would say this rider captures how I feel about the Roubaix SL3. If the SL4 Roubaix comes out in 2013, not doubt it will even be better...tho I will likely wait for the SL5 before upgrading. 
Roubaix SL3 review:
Tony's Cycling Blog: 2011 Specialized Roubaix SL3 Review


----------



## ronderman (May 17, 2010)

roadworthy said:


> Agree. But there is more than speed when it comes to road biking. There is comfort with speed...including injury avoidance. A stiff and rough riding bike...I live in the midwest with marginal roads, is real hard on aging wrists like mine. I just built the latest Roubaix Pro SL3.


Agree with everything you said. And my point wasn't to say anyone was wrong, but to just add a footnote that when this is all said and done it doesn't matter to most riders - it's just marketing. Heck, we're at a point where Cervelo is touting aero frames but then increasing the length of the headtube for a more upright ride. :mad2:

There are two other small points I would tell people to keep in mind

1. A CAAD 9 with good tubulars is just as comfy as a carbon bike with aluminum clinchers. I will bet you my dollars to your donuts that a CAAD 9 with mavic cosmic ultimates and good tubulars is more comfy and FASTER than a Roubaix with a pair of average clinchers like, say, ksyrium. People never consider this and yes tubulars have their issues, but with tufo tape you can change them pretty dang quick - as quick as most clinchers.

2. Specialized and Cannondale big companies, they gotta make you think it's the latest and greatest. I look at their release like Star Trek movies - every other one is good. A original Super Six is not the same as an EVO. But the Super Six HighMod - hardly any better. Yea, a SL4 is an improved SL3, but an SL3 is better than a SL2 and I bet you the SL5 will be something new all together. 

Just my thoughts.


----------



## roadworthy (Nov 11, 2011)

Yeah...there is a lot of marketing in the mix. BB-30 is marketing driven in fact whereas the average guy (me) can't flex an external threaded BB. But all said...I know you said dollars to donuts  but I would sure like to do that test you propose...CAAD9 with tubulars versus Roubaix with Al clinchers. I just don't believe it until I try it. Reason is, the Roubaix Pro has a 'freakishly' smooth ride and I know the CAAD9 doesn't having ridden different CAAD bikes. That said, wheels are huge in terms of ride harshness. What trumps wheels? Frameset. This is my experience. I have 145 psi rated clinchers on my new Roubaix and pressured up to 135 psi which is a bit higher than I typically ride which is about 120-125 psi...I weigh 185 lbs. The ride was unbelievable at 135 psi. At that pressure with clinchers I would lose a filling on a CAAD bike. The flipside when comparing things is...what level do you want to take it to?...why not tubulars on a Roubaix. I will say the ride of the Roubaix isn't for everybody. Some want more feedback from the road. 

As to a speed comparison between the two?...while I believe a CAAD9 'maybe' every bit as fast as the new Roubaix Pro, I don't think its faster. This is just my unsubstantiated opinion. The reason why...is the Pro is every bit as stiff...perhaps stiffer than the CAAD9 with cobra head tube shape, SL3 monocoque tubeset, huge diameter downtube and almost ball shaped BB....only with an unbelievable ride. So when we talk bike technology, I would say if there is an evolution underway, it is the ratio of vertical compliance to lateral stiffness that has improved so much. Where carbon wins over Aluminum is, not only 30% more modulus per the same weight, but ability to shape tubes to serve both masters. Weight is probably a wash between bikes or close enough. The CAAD9 with shorter wheelbase will have quicker handling however, I would not question that. I really believe there isn't much difference between top end racing bikes and the first tier down...or last year's model when it comes to speed...as you prove by your example...the engine matters the most.
Cheers.




ronderman said:


> Agree with everything you said. And my point wasn't to say anyone was wrong, but to just add a footnote that when this is all said and done it doesn't matter to most riders - it's just marketing. Heck, we're at a point where Cervelo is touting aero frames but then increasing the length of the headtube for a more upright ride. :mad2:
> 
> There are two other small points I would tell people to keep in mind
> 
> ...


----------

