# Which is better, Venge or Foil?



## bernithebiker (Sep 26, 2011)

With the Scott Foil just starting to appear on the roads, I wondered what people here think about these two bikes?

I hear the Foil is super-stiff, maybe too much so, and lighter than the Venge, and maybe more aero?

Personally, I have an SL4 S-Works, as I am a bit skeptical about the aero claims of these frames.

So pros and cons of the Foil versus the Venge?


----------



## kbwh (May 28, 2010)

Maybe get a Fonge. Or a Veil.


----------



## dcorn (Sep 1, 2011)

You don't think the aero is legit? They don't claim you're going to go 5 mph faster, just that you'll save a few hundred watts over the course of hours and hours of riding. Doesn't seem that unbelieveable to me. 

I'd say its personal preference between the Foil and Venge. I've been looking at both of them as well, especially since the Foil is about a grand less than the Venge, but the Spec just looks sooo nice. I think you'll just have to not mind ridind a stiff framed bike. I ride an aluminum Cervelo S1 and the Venge felt wayyyy more compliant than mine over road bumps and cracks. It just all depends on what you are used to and can put up with.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

One thing you might want to consider is the warranty terms on the bikes. As you may already know, Spec offers a limited lifetime on the frameset, while Scott offers a 5 year max, three if maintenance terms aren't followed - and it's for the frame only. No reference to forks.

Found in Scott's FAQ section:
What is the warranty policy for SCOTT bikes?

The warranty of frames is 5 year, but shall only be granted in case once a year a maintenance service has been affected according to maintenance requirements as set forth in this manual by an authorized SCOTT dealer.
The authorized SCOTT dealer shall confirm the effected annual maintenance service by stamp and signature.
In case such an annual maintenance service has not been affected the warranty of 5 years for the frame shall be reduced to 3 years.
Costs for maintenance and service have to be borne by the owner of the SCOTT bike.


----------



## bernithebiker (Sep 26, 2011)

dcorn said:


> You don't think the aero is legit? They don't claim you're going to go 5 mph faster, just that you'll save a few hundred watts over the course of hours and hours of riding. Doesn't seem that unbelieveable to me.


It's not that I don't believe that there is something to be had from an aero road frame. It's more that there is so much marketing bulls&*t out there, it's impossible to see the wood for the trees.

My personal belief is that the gains are tiny, and that you could acheive far more by optimizing your position, wearing tight tops, shaving your legs, etc. The human body is a big slab of meat at least 30cm wide and 180cm tall, that does not cut through the wind well. This is the thing to work on (position) more than the frame.

But all gains count right? So if you're a fast rider, often averaging in excess of 35km/h on training rides and 40 on fast rides, then maybe it's for you.

As for Venge vs. Foil, I reckon that any aero difference between the two must be miniscule, so choose based on fit, price, look, and (see below) warranty!


----------



## bernithebiker (Sep 26, 2011)

PJ352 said:


> One thing you might want to consider is the warranty terms on the bikes. As you may already know, Spec offers a limited lifetime on the frameset, while Scott offers a 5 year max, three if maintenance terms aren't followed - and it's for the frame only. No reference to forks.
> 
> Found in Scott's FAQ section:
> What is the warranty policy for SCOTT bikes?
> ...


This is an excellent (and somewhat shocking) find.

It would make me choose Venge over Foil for sure.

Scott seem to want to boost their dealer network's service charges. Why does a frame need to be serviced?! Not only is it a pain in the ass to have to take it in, but what exactly are they going to do to it? X-ray it?

To my mind if you can't stand by and guarantee your product for life, you shouldn't be selling it.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

bernithebiker said:


> This is an excellent (and somewhat shocking) find.
> 
> It would make me choose Venge over Foil for sure.
> 
> ...


Well, 'theoretically' the frame would be checked over during the maintenance service, but considering a specific type of ultra sound is needed to locate (internal) defects in CF, my guess is that Scott's _primary_ motive is to minimize the number of frames that get the 5 year warranty. 

FWIW, I agree with your response to dcorn above. Generally speaking, for probably 99% of all recreational riders, the aero benefits of a Venge/ Foil versus Tarmac (or similar) are miniscule and an improvement in form might well yield comparable (or better) results.


----------



## roadworthy (Nov 11, 2011)

PJ352 said:


> Well, 'theoretically' the frame would be checked over during the maintenance service, but considering a specific type of ultra sound is needed to locate (internal) defects in CF, my guess is that Scott's _primary_ motive is to minimize the number of frames that get the 5 year warranty.
> 
> FWIW, I agree with your response to dcorn above. Generally speaking, for probably 99% of all recreational riders, the aero benefits of a Venge/ Foil versus Tarmac (or similar) are miniscule and an improvement in form might well yield comparable (or better) results.


PJ gives good advice and for even a top amateur rider the aero benefit is slight as mentioned and position on the bike trumps bike aerodynamics by far as discussed. So what is between the bikes. For me, ride comfort is the deal breaker and why I wouldn't own a Scott. Aesthetics are in the eye of the beholder as well and the Venge gets the nod there. Warranty...Specialized again. Also consider resale. Believe the reality there is the Venge will win hands down and you will get your money back out of it compared to the Scott.
Two great bikes but for me on an out and out race bike, the one I can ride longer and be less beaten up gets the nod.


----------



## dcorn (Sep 1, 2011)

roadworthy said:


> PJ gives good advice and for even a top amateur rider the aero benefit is slight as mentioned and position on the bike trumps bike aerodynamics by far as discussed. So what is between the bikes. For me, ride comfort is the deal breaker and why I wouldn't own a Scott. Aesthetics are in the eye of the beholder as well and the Venge gets the nod there. Warranty...Specialized again. Also consider resale. Believe the reality there is the Venge will win hands down and you will get your money back out of it compared to the Scott.
> Two great bikes but for me on an out and out race bike, the one I can ride longer and be less beaten up gets the nod.


Don't get me wrong, I agree on all accounts here. But I'm a mechanical engineer, so anytime a technical design is used to gain an advantage of some sort, I'm all over it  

I'm glad you guys brought up the warranty, that is something I never saw before. I thought the warranty was limited on the Sworks bikes though?


----------



## bernithebiker (Sep 26, 2011)

dcorn said:


> Don't get me wrong, I agree on all accounts here. But I'm a mechanical engineer, so anytime a technical design is used to gain an advantage of some sort, I'm all over it
> 
> I'm glad you guys brought up the warranty, that is something I never saw before. I thought the warranty was limited on the Sworks bikes though?


Well, funnily enough, I'm a mechanical engineer as well. (Kings, London), but that makes me inclined to want to see stringent, credible testing, with all companies using the same criteria and conditions. Until then, any claims you read about are just that - claims!


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

bernithebiker said:


> Well, funnily enough, I'm a mechanical engineer as well. (Kings, London), but that makes me inclined to want to see stringent, credible testing, with all companies using the same criteria and conditions. Until then, any claims you read about are just that - claims!


I'm an engineer as well (software), so (inherent to the field) the smallest details matter. I'm with 'berni' on requiring _credible evidence_ that a given technology has real, tangible benefits to me - or the assumption is it's just another marketing gimmick. 

dcorn - the lifetime limited warranty extends to all Specialized bikes, not just S-Works. 
http://cdn.specialized.com/OA_MEDIA/pdf/manuals/OM0232_Warranty_r1.pdf


----------



## The Mountaineer (Nov 11, 2010)

I would like some opinions on how the Cervelo S5 fits in. Given the published data of the S5 it is reasonable to believe that it has an aero advantage over both bikes listed. The base model S5 frame has a claimed weight of 1260g. I doubt the Venge Pro is much different even though it costs $900 more.

My question is. Why would someone buy the Venge?


----------



## bernithebiker (Sep 26, 2011)

The Mountaineer said:


> I would like some opinions on how the Cervelo S5 fits in. Given the published data of the S5 it is reasonable to believe that it has an aero advantage over both bikes listed. The base model S5 frame has a claimed weight of 1260g. I doubt the Venge Pro is much different even though it costs $900 more.
> 
> My question is. Why would someone buy the Venge?


It's a nice looking bike no question, and looks to have been made more aero than the other two, for what it's worth........

Price wise, in Europe, it's 2899 Euros for the S5 framset, whereas the Venge S-Works goes for 2800 Euros, so almost the same. But the Venge S-Works is alot lighter, and to get the Cervelo at the same weight you need the S5 Team, 3600 E, or the VWD, a staggering 5300 Euros.

So the Venge S-Works has the Cervelo well beat for price, in Europe at least.

Also, oddly for an aero bike, the headtube length of the S5 is long, 154mm in the 54 size, whereas the Venge is 140, (like my SL4). I find even 140 a bit high. This alone would put me off the Cervelo.


----------



## bernithebiker (Sep 26, 2011)

Also, back to the marketing bulls**t subject, this is from Cervelo's website about the S5.

The S5 is the most advanced aerodynamic road bicycle ever developed by Cervélo. Inspired by the demands of the world’s top pro riders, the S5 deploys everything Cervélo has learned in 16 years of aerodynamic design, and combines it with advanced material engineering honed in our Project California facility. Using the latest TrueAeroTM shapes combined with our most advanced lay-up knowledge, the S5 doubles the aerodynamic advantage the S3 had over traditional road bicycles. By adding BBrightTM and SmartwallTM engineering, we maximize energy response, and raise the torsional rigidity a whopping 12% over its highly acclaimed predecessor. *The result is a quantifiably faster bicycle*, which is also agile and responsive, yet smooth and comfortable on the toughest road surfaces.

This makes me laugh. If it really is quantifiably faster, (i.e. they have raw data to show it's quicker), then why not tell us? They tell us everything else, just not that, the key point. Is it perhaps because the difference is miniscule?

Give us the data, let us judge for ourselves.

Of course, everyone else does this too, not just Cervelo.

And by the way, what happens to these aero frames when you add a big fat juicy water bottle to the downtube? (Like everyone does).


----------



## dcorn (Sep 1, 2011)

You mean all this data?

Cervlo S5 White Paper

Specifically this part:


Built for Bottles

As with every road bike Cervélo engineers have tested in the wind tunnel over the years, adding regular water bottles to the S5 adds aerodynamic drag. But a road bike like the S5 is seldom ridden without any bottles; there’s usually at least one. Cervélo engineers took this into account and designed the S5 to harmonize with the presence of bottles to incur minimal aero penalty.

This is accomplished on the S5 by:

· Widening the down tube’s trailing edge near the bottle to smooth airflow onto the bottle and

· Reducing the streamwise gap between the bottle’s trailing edge and the seat tube (the wider bottle smoothes the airflow onto the seat tube).

Figure 7 Cervélo S5 in the UWAL wind tunnel with the water bottle in the “low” position for on the down tube. 

The Cervélo S5 fits two water bottles in the usual positions: one on the seat tube, one on the down tube. In the standard 2-bottle arrangement, the bottles fit together tightly with each other and with the frame, reducing the gaps where turbulence forms and improving the aero performance. 

In addition, an extra bottle boss on the down tube creates a new lower position for a single bottle. Using the low position on the down tube saves 14 grams of aero drag, a reduction of about 1.4 Watts, compared to a bottle in the usual position.

The lowest drag bottle for the S5 is an Arundel Chrono on the seat tube, which added no measurable drag in our wind tunnel testing. An Arundel Chrono on the down tube added only a few grams.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

dcorn said:


> You mean all this data?
> 
> Cervlo S5 White Paper


Well, considering the definition of a white paper is _an official, authoritative, or heavily researched report on a topic,_ IMO calling Cervelo's in-house findings "official" or "authoritative" would be a stretch in the absence of independent verification. The paper actually reads like semi-technical ad copy.

That's not to say that there isn't useful info, but the comparisons are either made to 'similar bikes' or Cervelo's, so there's no direct comparisons to the Foil, Venge or others. But even if there were, I'm confident the 'white paper' would 'officially' designate the S5 superior in every way. 

As berni mentioned, everyone does similarly, but IMO Cervelo has marketing down to a 'science'.


----------



## bernithebiker (Sep 26, 2011)

dcorn said:


> You mean all this data?
> 
> Cervlo S5 White Paper
> 
> ...


Well yes, that is the kind of stuff I was looking for, although it would be nice if it had been more detailed, or done independently.

It's good to see that they are at least addressing the issue of water bottles, but although they say their method is an improvement on not doing anything, they don't say what the frame's drag figures are with a bottle. I would imagine that the bottle totally screws up the aero shape of the tubes in this area. They are just trying to reduce these bad effects.

When comparing with other bikes are the wheels, cranks, bars, stem, etc the same? And is the mannequin position the same? This all needs clarifying.

And finally, if these frames really do give such a big power saving advantage, why isn't everyone in the Tour de France using one? (Be it S5, Venge or similar).

Why do they still sell the R series, Spesh the SL4, and Scott the CR1?


----------



## The Mountaineer (Nov 11, 2010)

bernithebiker said:


> And finally, if these frames really do give such a big power saving advantage, why isn't everyone in the Tour de France using one? (Be it S5, Venge or similar).
> 
> Why do they still sell the R series, Spesh the SL4, and Scott the CR1?


Probably because aero bikes aren't as comfortable or as light as the SL4/R5/R3. It is known that aero bikes are not nearly as stiff as the above models; well the models that are meant to be ridden by mortals. I have no idea what type of rider would ride a Specialized Venge McLaren or Cervelo R5CA. 

I was about to post a variety of sources regarding torsional stiffness and weight, but I’m not sure it would do any good since everything contradict itself.


----------



## dcorn (Sep 1, 2011)

Man, you really can't please everyone haha. 

Just buy the bike you like the best and the one you feel the fastest on.


----------

