Advantages of Different Seatstay Designs on CF Road Race Bikes?
05-15-24, 03:22 PM
#51
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 5,592
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2611 Post(s)
Liked 3,143 Times
in
1,790 Posts
The question of what's superior/inferior isn't just about optimal design and materials. We could argue all day about what 'significant' torsional loads are, but even if we agreed on an 'optimal' design, then there would be questions about affordability, durability and so on. UCI or no UCI, 99% of cyclists will be riding bicycles with seat stays for the foreseeable future.
05-15-24, 03:51 PM
#52
Brisvegas roadie
Join Date: Jul 2023
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 64
Bikes: 2013 Trek Domane 6.9 (SRAM Red-22), 2010 Colnago CLX 2.0 (SRAM Red 10-speed mix), 2013 Pinarello FP Uno (Campagnolo Athena 11-speed), 2009 Fuji Roubaix Pro (Shimano 105 10-speed), 2009 Colnago EPS (dream build, under construction!)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 27 Post(s)
Liked 21 Times
in
14 Posts
05-15-24, 04:22 PM
#53
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 5,592
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2611 Post(s)
Liked 3,143 Times
in
1,790 Posts
05-16-24, 04:05 AM
#54
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 8,789
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4592 Post(s)
Liked 5,133 Times
in
3,171 Posts
I think if it wasn’t for the UCI regulations we would see a lot more high-end road bikes today without seatstays or traditional front triangles. We see more design variation in tri-bikes (eg Cervelo P3X) for this reason.
Full length, dropped or no seat stays are all viable structural design solutions. Torsional rigidity should not be a concern with any of these choices if implemented properly. The typical dropped stays we see on the current crop of world tour road bikes are all plenty stiff enough.
Full length stays are clearly at an aero disadvantage, which is why dropped stays are now pretty much the standard for all aero road bikes. I don’t believe there is any compromise in dropping the seat stays other than subjective aesthetics.
Full length, dropped or no seat stays are all viable structural design solutions. Torsional rigidity should not be a concern with any of these choices if implemented properly. The typical dropped stays we see on the current crop of world tour road bikes are all plenty stiff enough.
Full length stays are clearly at an aero disadvantage, which is why dropped stays are now pretty much the standard for all aero road bikes. I don’t believe there is any compromise in dropping the seat stays other than subjective aesthetics.
Likes For PeteHski:
05-16-24, 04:20 AM
#55
Brisvegas roadie
Join Date: Jul 2023
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 64
Bikes: 2013 Trek Domane 6.9 (SRAM Red-22), 2010 Colnago CLX 2.0 (SRAM Red 10-speed mix), 2013 Pinarello FP Uno (Campagnolo Athena 11-speed), 2009 Fuji Roubaix Pro (Shimano 105 10-speed), 2009 Colnago EPS (dream build, under construction!)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 27 Post(s)
Liked 21 Times
in
14 Posts
I think if it wasn’t for the UCI regulations we would see a lot more high-end road bikes today without seatstays or traditional front triangles. We see more design variation in tri-bikes (eg Cervelo P3X) for this reason.
Full length, dropped or no seat stays are all viable structural design solutions. Torsional rigidity should not be a concern with any of these choices if implemented properly. The typical dropped stays we see on the current crop of world tour road bikes are all plenty stiff enough.
Full length stays are clearly at an aero disadvantage, which is why dropped stays are now pretty much the standard for all aero road bikes. I don’t believe there is any compromise in dropping the seat stays other than subjective aesthetics.
Full length, dropped or no seat stays are all viable structural design solutions. Torsional rigidity should not be a concern with any of these choices if implemented properly. The typical dropped stays we see on the current crop of world tour road bikes are all plenty stiff enough.
Full length stays are clearly at an aero disadvantage, which is why dropped stays are now pretty much the standard for all aero road bikes. I don’t believe there is any compromise in dropping the seat stays other than subjective aesthetics.
05-16-24, 06:10 AM
#56
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 5,592
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2611 Post(s)
Liked 3,143 Times
in
1,790 Posts
I think you're probably right, but I'd question just how affordable, durable and accessible those bikes would be for every day cyclists. The prices of many of the higher end bikes are ridiculous already these days, an order of magnitude more expensive than equivalent models were say 15 years ago. I do find the cutting edge technological advances interesting (same as I do for motorsports etc) and it's inevitable some of these will always trickle down to the typical road cyclist. Again I'm not defending the UCI, but one thing I would definitely like to see is for the pro tour to be something like production car formula/homologation racing. I think that would be good for the sport and for enthusiasts alike. Still have high end bikes for sure, but it's becoming insane the amount of money up and coming cyclists need to fork out to be competitive.
Hadn't heard of the Cervelo P3X. Wow - no seat stays, no seat tube. Sells for around $9,000, or it did back when Triathlon magazine reviewed it, in 2019.
The UCI gets a lot of criticism, which explains why you felt the need to say that you weren't defending them. but homologation is precisely their intent in regulating what is and what is not acceptable with respect to designs for bike frames and components (and, e.g., clothing). I've been annoyed/outraged by some of their bans in the past:
But I notice that I tend to be outraged when they ban stuff I can afford (e.g., the Spinaci bars) but indifferent about the bikes and equipment that are priced beyond what I'd consider paying (that Cervelo C3X, for instance).
By "everyday cyclists," you probably mean amateur racers. At that level, racing bikes in the range of $3,000 to $4,000, and arguably less, are capable enough that a strong rider would not be significantly disadvantaged while racing against riders of similar strength who are on $10,000 bikes. They might covet the pricier bike, but at the amateur level, talent will out. It's at the pro level that tiny differences can result in significant outcomes.
Maybe. Pogačar is making the hand-wringing over ultra-expensive equipment and the resulting marginal gains look ridiculous.
05-16-24, 06:13 AM
#57
Thread Killer
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 12,521
Bikes: 15 Kinesis Racelight 4S, 76 Motebecane Gran Jubilée, 17 Dedacciai Gladiatore2, 12 Breezer Venturi, 09 Dahon Mariner, 12 Mercier Nano, 95 DeKerf Team SL, 19 Tern Rally, 21 Breezer Doppler Cafe+, 19 T-Lab X3, 91 Serotta CII, 23 3T Strada
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3217 Post(s)
Liked 1,757 Times
in
1,060 Posts
I think you're probably right, but I'd question just how affordable, durable and accessible those bikes would be for every day cyclists. The prices of many of the higher end bikes are ridiculous already these days, an order of magnitude more expensive than equivalent models were say 15 years ago. I do find the cutting edge technological advances interesting (same as I do for motorsports etc) and it's inevitable some of these will always trickle down to the typical road cyclist. Again I'm not defending the UCI, but one thing I would definitely like to see is for the pro tour to be something like production car formula/homologation racing. I think that would be good for the sport and for enthusiasts alike. Still have high end bikes for sure, but it's becoming insane the amount of money up and coming cyclists need to fork out to be competitive.
The other notion I’d challenge is the idea that innovate, UCI-illegal designs would cost more than conventional double diamond designs. Primarily that’s simply a cost of manufacturing question, and if the industry had shifted to another design, I don’t think there’s any reason to presume the industry wouldn’t achieve similar efficiencies to what we have today. Particularly, if you look at CF construction, and look at a bike like the Giant MCR (which I posted a pic of upthread), what you see is a much simplified, less complex design compared to a double-diamond frame. In such a case, it’s easy to imagine that construction would be simplified, too, if we’re using the hand-laid process for CF which was used in 1997 and remains in common use today. And that’s exclusive of more modern production techniques like mandrel winding or unknown methods which might have been adopted had the industry focused on those forms.
In the short term, price increases attend innovation, but in the long term, standardization decreases cost, so it’s hard to project out to a what-might-have-been scenario. One thing for sure is that the value of money is going to decrease over time, either in spite of or because of deflationary periods.
05-16-24, 06:23 AM
#58
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 5,592
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2611 Post(s)
Liked 3,143 Times
in
1,790 Posts
I don’t disagree that costs are high, but I do think there’s a bit of hyperbole going on here. Inflation is a thing, and at ~3% year, over 15 years, that’s like 45%. I’m not sure of the rate exactly, but it’s around there. The top Specialized Tarmac was $10k in 2010 (using Wayback Machine) and is $15k today. That’s just about right on, and not an “order of magnitude more” nor out of sync with the decrease in the value of the dollar. Now, my income has not gone up 50% over the past 15 years, so yeah, the cost of a top tier bike is even more unreachable to me today than it was then, but this is a basic fault of our economic system, not something specific to bikes.
The other notion I’d challenge is the idea that innovate, UCI-illegal designs would cost more than conventional double diamond designs. Primarily that’s simply a cost of manufacturing question, and if the industry had shifted to another design, I don’t think there’s any reason to presume the industry wouldn’t achieve similar efficiencies to what we have today. Particularly, if you look at CF construction, and look at a bike like the Giant MCR (which I posted a pic of upthread), what you see is a much simplified, less complex design compared to a double-diamond frame. In such a case, it’s easy to imagine that construction would be simplified, too, if we’re using the hand-laid process for CF which was used in 1997 and remains in common use today. And that’s exclusive of more modern production techniques like mandrel winding or unknown methods which might have been adopted had the industry focused on those forms.
In the short term, price increases attend innovation, but in the long term, standardization decreases cost, so it’s hard to project out to a what-might-have-been scenario. One thing for sure is that the value of money is going to decrease over time, either in spite of or because of deflationary periods.
The other notion I’d challenge is the idea that innovate, UCI-illegal designs would cost more than conventional double diamond designs. Primarily that’s simply a cost of manufacturing question, and if the industry had shifted to another design, I don’t think there’s any reason to presume the industry wouldn’t achieve similar efficiencies to what we have today. Particularly, if you look at CF construction, and look at a bike like the Giant MCR (which I posted a pic of upthread), what you see is a much simplified, less complex design compared to a double-diamond frame. In such a case, it’s easy to imagine that construction would be simplified, too, if we’re using the hand-laid process for CF which was used in 1997 and remains in common use today. And that’s exclusive of more modern production techniques like mandrel winding or unknown methods which might have been adopted had the industry focused on those forms.
In the short term, price increases attend innovation, but in the long term, standardization decreases cost, so it’s hard to project out to a what-might-have-been scenario. One thing for sure is that the value of money is going to decrease over time, either in spite of or because of deflationary periods.
Likes For Trakhak:
05-16-24, 08:15 AM
#59
Brisvegas roadie
Join Date: Jul 2023
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 64
Bikes: 2013 Trek Domane 6.9 (SRAM Red-22), 2010 Colnago CLX 2.0 (SRAM Red 10-speed mix), 2013 Pinarello FP Uno (Campagnolo Athena 11-speed), 2009 Fuji Roubaix Pro (Shimano 105 10-speed), 2009 Colnago EPS (dream build, under construction!)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 27 Post(s)
Liked 21 Times
in
14 Posts
I don’t disagree that costs are high, but I do think there’s a bit of hyperbole going on here. Inflation is a thing, and at ~3% year, over 15 years, that’s like 45%. I’m not sure of the rate exactly, but it’s around there. The top Specialized Tarmac was $10k in 2010 (using Wayback Machine) and is $15k today. That’s just about right on, and not an “order of magnitude more” nor out of sync with the decrease in the value of the dollar. Now, my income has not gone up 50% over the past 15 years, so yeah, the cost of a top tier bike is even more unreachable to me today than it was then, but this is a basic fault of our economic system, not something specific to bikes.
The other notion I’d challenge is the idea that innovate, UCI-illegal designs would cost more than conventional double diamond designs. Primarily that’s simply a cost of manufacturing question, and if the industry had shifted to another design, I don’t think there’s any reason to presume the industry wouldn’t achieve similar efficiencies to what we have today. Particularly, if you look at CF construction, and look at a bike like the Giant MCR (which I posted a pic of upthread), what you see is a much simplified, less complex design compared to a double-diamond frame. In such a case, it’s easy to imagine that construction would be simplified, too, if we’re using the hand-laid process for CF which was used in 1997 and remains in common use today. And that’s exclusive of more modern production techniques like mandrel winding or unknown methods which might have been adopted had the industry focused on those forms.
In the short term, price increases attend innovation, but in the long term, standardization decreases cost, so it’s hard to project out to a what-might-have-been scenario. One thing for sure is that the value of money is going to decrease over time, either in spite of or because of deflationary periods.
The other notion I’d challenge is the idea that innovate, UCI-illegal designs would cost more than conventional double diamond designs. Primarily that’s simply a cost of manufacturing question, and if the industry had shifted to another design, I don’t think there’s any reason to presume the industry wouldn’t achieve similar efficiencies to what we have today. Particularly, if you look at CF construction, and look at a bike like the Giant MCR (which I posted a pic of upthread), what you see is a much simplified, less complex design compared to a double-diamond frame. In such a case, it’s easy to imagine that construction would be simplified, too, if we’re using the hand-laid process for CF which was used in 1997 and remains in common use today. And that’s exclusive of more modern production techniques like mandrel winding or unknown methods which might have been adopted had the industry focused on those forms.
In the short term, price increases attend innovation, but in the long term, standardization decreases cost, so it’s hard to project out to a what-might-have-been scenario. One thing for sure is that the value of money is going to decrease over time, either in spite of or because of deflationary periods.
Just for the sake of responding to the hyperbole comment though, here's some actual numbers:
2009 Trek Madone MSRP US$7,699.99 vs 2024 Trek Madone SLR 9 AXS MSRP US$23,199.99, just over triple the price.
2009 US$7,699.99 adjusted for inflation to 2024 would be US$11,253.61, just under a 1.5 x increase
2009 real median household income US$65,850 vs say $75,000 (CPI adjusted) and that's total income before we even consider disposable income, i.e. the discretionary dollars people use to buy things like nice road bikes.
05-16-24, 09:20 AM
#60
Brisvegas roadie
Join Date: Jul 2023
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 64
Bikes: 2013 Trek Domane 6.9 (SRAM Red-22), 2010 Colnago CLX 2.0 (SRAM Red 10-speed mix), 2013 Pinarello FP Uno (Campagnolo Athena 11-speed), 2009 Fuji Roubaix Pro (Shimano 105 10-speed), 2009 Colnago EPS (dream build, under construction!)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 27 Post(s)
Liked 21 Times
in
14 Posts
The UCI gets a lot of criticism, which explains why you felt the need to say that you weren't defending them. but homologation is precisely their intent in regulating what is and what is not acceptable with respect to designs for bike frames and components (and, e.g., clothing). I've been annoyed/outraged by some of their bans in the past:
Likes For Sapper69:
05-16-24, 09:41 AM
#61
Thread Killer
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 12,521
Bikes: 15 Kinesis Racelight 4S, 76 Motebecane Gran Jubilée, 17 Dedacciai Gladiatore2, 12 Breezer Venturi, 09 Dahon Mariner, 12 Mercier Nano, 95 DeKerf Team SL, 19 Tern Rally, 21 Breezer Doppler Cafe+, 19 T-Lab X3, 91 Serotta CII, 23 3T Strada
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3217 Post(s)
Liked 1,757 Times
in
1,060 Posts
The Specialized prices I posted were actual, too, and if my above price citations are correct, Trek's price increase is right in line with Specialized, so I dunno how we can work with your numbers of $7.6k and $23K.
Also, irrespective of whether or not that +2x increase over adjusted cost for the new Madone your numbers show is real (of '$23k vs. $11.2k), there's the question of whether 2x would be an "order of magnitude" increase. I thought, commonly, order of magnitude meant a 10x increase, which would be clearly hyperbolic in this case no matter whose numbers we use.
Likes For chaadster:
05-16-24, 09:56 AM
#62
Brisvegas roadie
Join Date: Jul 2023
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 64
Bikes: 2013 Trek Domane 6.9 (SRAM Red-22), 2010 Colnago CLX 2.0 (SRAM Red 10-speed mix), 2013 Pinarello FP Uno (Campagnolo Athena 11-speed), 2009 Fuji Roubaix Pro (Shimano 105 10-speed), 2009 Colnago EPS (dream build, under construction!)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 27 Post(s)
Liked 21 Times
in
14 Posts
05-16-24, 10:08 AM
#63
Thread Killer
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 12,521
Bikes: 15 Kinesis Racelight 4S, 76 Motebecane Gran Jubilée, 17 Dedacciai Gladiatore2, 12 Breezer Venturi, 09 Dahon Mariner, 12 Mercier Nano, 95 DeKerf Team SL, 19 Tern Rally, 21 Breezer Doppler Cafe+, 19 T-Lab X3, 91 Serotta CII, 23 3T Strada
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3217 Post(s)
Liked 1,757 Times
in
1,060 Posts
I provided links to Trek's actual pages above, and here's the 2024 Trek Madone SLR 9 with Red AXS, the on you referenced, on Trek's site right now on sale at $9,999 instead of the regular $13.2k:
https://www.trekbikes.com/us/en_US/b...MaAuFyEALw_wcB
05-16-24, 11:50 AM
#64
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 5,592
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2611 Post(s)
Liked 3,143 Times
in
1,790 Posts
Hmm...Wayback Machine is showing Madone 6 Series with DA was $8,609.99 MSRP on Trek's Sept.18, '09 site (https://web.archive.org/web/20090918...ld_your_madone) and the current Trek site shows Madone SLR 9 Gen 7 with DA at $12,749.99 (https://www.trekbikes.com/us/en_US/b...?colorCode=red). Maybe there's something going on with conversions from USD to AUD on your end?
The Specialized prices I posted were actual, too, and if my above price citations are correct, Trek's price increase is right in line with Specialized, so I dunno how we can work with your numbers of $7.6k and $23K.
Also, irrespective of whether or not that +2x increase over adjusted cost for the new Madone your numbers show is real (of '$23k vs. $11.2k), there's the question of whether 2x would be an "order of magnitude" increase. I thought, commonly, order of magnitude meant a 10x increase, which would be clearly hyperbolic in this case no matter whose numbers we use.
The Specialized prices I posted were actual, too, and if my above price citations are correct, Trek's price increase is right in line with Specialized, so I dunno how we can work with your numbers of $7.6k and $23K.
Also, irrespective of whether or not that +2x increase over adjusted cost for the new Madone your numbers show is real (of '$23k vs. $11.2k), there's the question of whether 2x would be an "order of magnitude" increase. I thought, commonly, order of magnitude meant a 10x increase, which would be clearly hyperbolic in this case no matter whose numbers we use.
And for the everyday cyclist who wants a high-zoot racing bike but doesn't want to spring for the top of the line, the Trek Madone SLR 7 Gen 7, with wireless Ultegra, carbon frame, and carbon wheels, has a MSRP of $9,049.99.
And a Madone SL 6 Gen 7 (wired 105 Di2, carbon frame and wheels) is $5,499.99.
And so on down the line, for Trek and their competitors.
What with having had no interest in new racing bikes since I bought my last one in 2005, I had no idea how affordable current carbon bikes with new tech were until I started poking around the Trek site today. I'm glad Sapper69 and chaadster went off on this tangent.
Likes For Trakhak:
05-16-24, 01:01 PM
#65
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 8,789
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4592 Post(s)
Liked 5,133 Times
in
3,171 Posts
$9k gets you a top tier Canyon Aeroad CFR. Or you could spend half that and still get very close on performance by dropping down a couple of build tier levels. You don’t need DuraAce or Red to be competitive.
Likes For PeteHski:
