Oct 12, 2001 6:55 AM
|anyone have any comments on a scandium framed bike. interested in the carbon rear ones by dean or colorado cyclist team issue scandium. how is the ride in relation to steel/ti? any help appreciated. thanks|
|Scandium? That's sooo 1999...||TJeanloz|
Oct 12, 2001 7:15 AM
|In a nutshell, Scandium bikes are wicked light, of somewhat dubious durability (especially in bigger sizes), have a rougher ride than steel or ti- but not as awful as aluminum is often thought to be. In my experience, they make awesome bikes for racers- who want maximum performance- and are somewhat less great for enthusiasts who want them to do all kinds of things. The carbon rear triangle ones do have a slightly softer ride, but the bikes remain laterally very stiff. These bikes tend to feel like rockets- they accelerate fast and climb well, often at the expense of great handling.
Keep in mind that this is a terrible generelization involving ultra-light aluminum bikes, and I have no direct experience with either the Dean or CC bikes. I tend to be of the opinion that every kind of bike has an ideal rider, and Scandium is perfect for a few people, and perfectly awful for an equal number.
|re: Scandium bikes?||5ive|
Oct 12, 2001 7:34 AM
|I don't have tons of experience with scandium frames, but I have owned scandium/carbon Pinarello Prince for about 4 months now so I'll talk about that. First, I do not notice much difference between my prince and other aluminum frames I've tried. I do think that Prince with rear carbon stays are bit more comfortable than 'most' of the straight aluminum frames out there, but I've also ridden plenty of straight aluminum frames that are on par with my bike in terms of comfort. Personally I think there's alot more to take into consideration than just frame materials. With that said, Prince gives me one of the best rides I've ever experienced. In terms of comfort, it almost approaches the level of my steel Bianchi, but at the same time it's much lighter and stiffer. The handling is dead-on and it tracks corners so tight that it takes some getting used to in the beginning. The ride itself is quite comfortable, but there are plenty of steel or ti bikes I've ridden that were better. Scandium/Carbon frames tend to be on racing bikes, and as such you should expect to give up some comfort in favor or performance. Hope this helps.|
|Are you under the impression that SC 6110 is Scandium?||DCW|
Oct 12, 2001 12:08 PM
|I am wondering about the source of your information.|
|Are you under the impression that SC 6110 is Scandium?||5ive|
Oct 12, 2001 12:32 PM
|As far as I'm aware, Yes. Scandium is an aluminum alloy. Dedacciai produces SC tubesets and I believe Easton also produces some scandium alloy tubesets.|
Oct 12, 2001 1:22 PM
|Please, let us not have this argument. Again, it's sooo 1999. Easton pioneered Scandium alloys in bicycle tubesets and uses "Scandium" as a registered trademark. Dedaccai (sp?) has never acknowledged the presence of Scandium in the SC61.10 tubeset- but is generally assumed to be a scandium alloy (as are some of Columbus' offerings.) I think the term "Scandium" has come to encompass all of the super-light aluminum bikes, whether or not they are actually made from an Easton Scandium tubeset (the only tubeset that admits to using scandium).
More info than you ever wanted to know at:
|No argument intended . . .||DCW|
Oct 12, 2001 4:21 PM
|I am now wondering how anyone could trademark the name of an element that is actually used in the manufacture of the product (as opposed to patenting a process or trademarking an unusual application of a element name, as "Oxygen" for a TV network or "Helium" for a wheelset).
I am also wondering, even if the trademark is legally protectable (recognized) why another company using a Scandium/Aluminum alloy would want to hide the fact. In this case, of course, Dedacciai employs a 6061 Alu, whereas the Easton version derives from 7005. If use of Scandium improves the Alu, you would think Pinarello and Dedacciai, among others, would want to advertise its application in their tubing and frames. After all, tubing and frame manufacturers are usually looking for a competitive edge or to dull an edge established by a competitor.
|There are some reasons,||TJeanloz|
Oct 13, 2001 11:35 AM
|There are some reasons that Deda would not want to market a "Scandium" tubeset.
1. Easton came out with their SC tubeset earlier than Dedacciai, so it makes it a tough sell to be the second company in the marketplace. Instead of saying: "We make Scandium too, but weren't smart enough to come out with it first"; they say: "We have this top-secret alloy that is better than that 'Scandium' that Easton is pedalling".
2. What if the Easton SC tubes are a market flop? It could happen, all the Easton bikes could break, giving Scandium a bad name, even if Dedacciai's tubes were much better.
What it comes down to is that if Deda markets their tubes as Scandium, they acknowledge their second-rung status to Easton, and can not assert to have the better product.
|No argument intended . . .||CT1 Guy|
Oct 14, 2001 7:32 AM
|I know a major dealer in the UK who dropped the Bianchi line this year because of the number of major failures he was having with EV2's - primarily at the head tube - not all bikes are built the same - particularly by looking at the quality of welding on top line Bianchis.|
|re: Scandium bikes?||Chainstay|
Oct 14, 2001 6:28 PM
|The carbon seat stays don't do much. All the seat stay is really needed for is to take the compressive load from the dropout and to hold the rear brake. Just about any material can do a good job on this and even the lighest won't save a lot of weight.
Carbon frames have nice dampening of roadshock so maybe the seat stay will be a little nicer on the butt but it seems like a lot of fuss about almost nothing.
|Golfers should be SHOT!!!||CC|
Oct 12, 2001 9:05 AM
Oct 12, 2001 9:18 AM
|How many of our motoring friends do you think would say the same thing about cyclists?|
|I believe someone is trying to take my identity!!||Cima Coppi|
Oct 12, 2001 11:10 AM
|At this time I am not going to comment on Golfers/Golfing. Now, back to cycling.
|re: Scandium bikes?||Cliff Oates|
Oct 12, 2001 2:04 PM
|FWIW, Interloc Racing also makes a scandium/carbon frame (http://www.interlocracing.com/). I handled one of their frames at my LBS and it was very light and seemed well constructed. It was not built up and my main ride is lugged steel, so...|
|Design trumps materials||Kerry Irons|
Oct 12, 2001 5:42 PM
|There are way to many design variables that control the ride of a frame to claim that frame material is a significant factor, except in the ability to get lighter than steel. So, if you want to make a flexy aluminum bike (whether it has a trace of Sc in the alloy or not), you just make the tubes smaller diameter. If you want to make a stiff frame of any material, you go for big diameters. You're limited with steel's density as to how thin you can make the tubes before they "beer can" easily, but other than that, you can obtain any ride with any material. There's no miracle in any particular alloy for ride qualities - it's all about tubing shape(s), tubing diameter, tubing wall thickness, geometry, etc.|
|Design trumps materials||Chainstay|
Oct 14, 2001 6:37 PM
|And that is exactly why fatigue life is so important. A designer can obtain any ride initially, but will it last under flexing? Ti has the best fatigue performance, Al the worst. If you want a compliant frame you look to titanium, steel gives a nice balance and the only reliable way to make an Al bike is to make it stiff.|| |