CYCLINGFORUM.COM - Where Cyclists Talk Tech --- Return To Home

 

    Register FAQ'sSearchProfileLog In / Log Out

 

****

cyclingforum.com ****

HOMECLUBS | SPONSORS | FEATURESPHOTO GALLERYTTF DONORS | SHOP FOR GEAR

Return to CyclingForum Home Page CYCLING TECH TALK FORUM
          View posts since last visit

Any in House Seven [Ti Cycles] experience/expert?
 Goto page 1, 2  Next

Author Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
Sparky
Joined: 08 Dec 2003
Posts: 19068
Location: PDX

5/10/13 8:47 AM

Any in House Seven [Ti Cycles] experience/expert?

Got a trade going for this:

http://portland.craigslist.org/clc/bid/3787792459.html




Appears to have straight ga. tubes, anyone know where that puts it year and name/level. Assuming it would be lower end without shaped or worked tubes...


I think it may be an AXIOM S??

 Reply to topic     Send e-mail

Nick Payne
Joined: 10 Jan 2004
Posts: 2625
Location: Canberra, Australia

5/10/13 2:32 PM

The last issue but one of Bicycle Quarterly had a fairly extensive test comparing an Axiom SL and Lynskey Helix.

 Reply to topic    

dfcas
Joined: 11 Jan 2004
Posts: 2815
Location: hillbilly heaven

5/10/13 2:52 PM

I bought a used Seven Tsunami 59cm cross frame from a guy on the Serotta forum. Beatiful bike, straight, pretty welds. As soon as I rode it I groaned. It was obviously built for someone much lighter than me, maybe a 75 pounder. The rear triangle felt like rubber, as the tire rubbed the brakes when climbing. I contacted Seven to try to find out what stiffness level it was built for to have sense of reference, but they would not discuss it with me since I was not the original owner. They are arrogant.

I put it on ebay and the guy I bought it from saw it and bought it back from me.

Do ride it first and climb on it to test drivetrain rigidity. I'm sure they can build to any stiffness level, but you need to make sure what you are getting. I've heard others say they tend to be soft in the drivetrain.

 Reply to topic     Send e-mail

Sparky
Joined: 08 Dec 2003
Posts: 19068
Location: PDX

5/10/13 5:43 PM

" I've heard others say they tend to be soft in the drivetrain."


I have heard that said about Serotta Ti as well, The Legend specifically. I intend to get on it and pound it a little [or more]. With my huge power.. er... fat ars, a noodle is not in the cards...

 Reply to topic     Send e-mail

stan
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 467

5/10/13 8:02 PM

That could span a long range of years. Seven hasn't really changed that much. But the thing they do is allow the buyer to custom everything including the ride characteristics. I had an "Alta" made in 2003, which was their lightest at the time. I had the rear built extra stiff and it was really a sprinter and climbed without flex. It also looked like your picture so it's difficult to say what that is.

 Reply to topic    

Craig
Joined: 12 Jan 2004
Posts: 591

5/10/13 8:09 PM

The value in a Seven, or any custom bike, is in the "custom" aspect of it. As soon as you're buying a second hand Seven the price range for comparison is in line with a Lynsky, Litespeed, Merlin, or any other well made ti bike. Possibly less because of the compromises made due to the "custom" nature of the bike (ala the story of the custom 7 made for a much lighter rider....) If you're buying a used 7 you need to put aside the retail price of such a bike because that price includes a custom fit process etc that you're not getting and shouldn't pay for unless you're buying an odd geometry bike that might fit you better than an off the shelf frame, but even then you should consider that this bike wasn't made for you and you shouldn't pay a premium for a process you weren't a part of.

Compare the price of this 7 to a straight gauge Litespeed and that's about what it's worth.

For what it's worth, I've always thought 7 was guilty of overcharging for their bikes all along and ran a pretty good smoke and mirrors show regarding the "custom" side of things. I remember asking them to build a bike with straight chainstays for a customer who didn't like the look of the curved ones and they said they wouldn't do that. I also remember them saying a customer was too heavy for their Maverick linked full suspension bike. You would think for the premium they charge and the purported attention to custom tuned rides that someone there would have said something when looking at the "rider weight" on the custom fit form before building the bike.

If the bike fits and has a geometry you like it's worth as much as any other bike that fits and has the geometry you like. It's worth nothing more because it's a 7, their bikes are nothing special. Not bad. But nothing special. (though maybe a little bad)

 Reply to topic    

Sparky
Joined: 08 Dec 2003
Posts: 19068
Location: PDX

5/11/13 9:23 AM

Too tall for me, besides someone out of the blue came and bought the thing I was going to trade for cash. Maybe time to put a deposit on another Strong. ;)

 Reply to topic     Send e-mail

Brian Nystrom
Joined: 26 Jan 2004
Posts: 5096
Location: Nashua, NH

5/12/13 7:16 AM

Changing standards for stiffness

I remember riding a Serotta Legend Ti and being very impressed with how stiff it was. When I bought my Litespeed Vortex, I though the frame was pretty stiff, although the fork wasn't. My Lemond Ti RS seemed quite stiff, too.

Switching to carbon frames has revealed a whole new level of stiffness. The softer of my two carbon frames, a Look 585, is considerably stiffer than any Ti frame I've ridden, especially in the bottom bracket/drivetrain area. However, it doesn't really feel especially stiff until you "put the wood to it" on a climb or in a sprint, or hit a substantial bump in the road.

My other carbon road frame, a Cannondale SuperSix HiMod is a level above the 585 in stiffness. With skinny tires at high-ish pressures, it can feel downright harsh. Wider rubber and lower pressures make it more comfortable, though it's not my first choice for rough roads.

Now that we have carbon frames for comparison, what was once considered stiff is now considered relatively soft. I haven't ridden any newer Ti frames, but it seems that carbon has really shifted the benchmark and set the new standard, and Ti frames will be hard-pressed to keep up.

 Reply to topic    

Dave B
Joined: 10 Jan 2004
Posts: 4511
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

5/12/13 8:54 AM

Yabbut


quote:
....but it seems that carbon has really shifted the benchmark and set the new standard, and Ti frames will be hard-pressed to keep up.

So will steel and even aluminum if pure stiffness is the criteria. None of them can match Carbon for stiffness at anywhere near the same weight. Sure, you could make a Ti or steel frame extremely stiff but the weight would be unacceptable in today's market.

 Reply to topic     Send e-mail

Brian Nystrom
Joined: 26 Jan 2004
Posts: 5096
Location: Nashua, NH

5/14/13 4:31 AM

I agree

As much as I've been a big Ti fan, it seems like the new generation Aluminum frames are the only ones that can compete reasonably well against carbon for combined weight, stiffness and ride quality. Their much lower price helps compensate for slight shortcomings, at least in the marketplace. It makes me wonder if we'll start to see aluminum/carbon hybrids, not with carbon tubes, but with strategically placed reinforcements. Klein was doing it with boron fiber back in the late 70's, so it would seem quite feasible with modern composite technology.

 Reply to topic    

April
Joined: 13 Dec 2003
Posts: 6593
Location: Westchester/NYC

5/14/13 7:48 AM


quote:
It makes me wonder if we'll start to see aluminum/carbon hybrids, not with carbon tubes, but with strategically placed reinforcements.

I don't quite see that coming.

Steel/Ti appeals on ride quality, putting up with other compromises (weight, stiffness). Al doesn't really have any advantage per se, except cost. Adding carbon would negate that advantage.

There's been quite a few experiments of carbon tubes, Seven being one of such. The joint was always the trouble spot. So it seems the interface between the 2 materials are the challenge, tube or otherwise.

 Reply to topic     Send e-mail

dfcas
Joined: 11 Jan 2004
Posts: 2815
Location: hillbilly heaven

5/14/13 10:02 AM

I've had a few carbons that I thought are just too harsh riding. I like a stiff drivetrain but these seemed to ride more like aluminum. I had a Giant OCR that I wanted to like but it just felt dead.

My Calfee is the best balance that I've had. It takes the edge off of hits but responds well too stomping. I'm finding that that I prefer tube-tube carbon frames over monocoque.

After a bad winter a few years ago, our roads are crap, and I am done with 23's. Nothing less that 28's for me these days.

 Reply to topic     Send e-mail

Sparky
Joined: 08 Dec 2003
Posts: 19068
Location: PDX

5/14/13 11:28 AM

The Pro Level [not my distinction] Roubaix seems a nice balance. Out of the Carbon bikes I have had over the years, I found the early OCLV the deadest/stiffest, the Kestrel EMS200 the spongiest. The C-35 Nago was dead and even heavier than the 5200-5500s I rode. Not of them stuck of stay with me for too long due to lack of bonding. [no pun intended]

Having said that, OCLVs & C-35 stiffness for balls out rocket riding = good. Now that I will probably not do that anymore... I also like 28C tires, and 25-6 too. And on wider rims these days.

Having said that, the Roubaix even though you could fit 30mm maybe 32mm tires rides incredibly on the 23mm Hutchie Comps. To the point that a benefit of ride quality for the bigger tires seems negligible.

But the Bridgestone 400 with 28C aired to 75/85lb rides even better. ;) I would not dare running the 23s on the Roubiax near that low.

I kind of wise the Roubaix was just a little stepper HTA, but maybe for 100+ mile rides that won't be said. I will post that probably, as this is the year, at least in my plans.

Went to Spokane for Mother's Day. Sat I put the trailer hitch on the new NOX so we could use the Thule rack that mounts via the receiver. So it was cool to ride Cheney, WA with both my son and wife, on all three bike of my wrenching from frames with a few of my fav people. ;) #2 son did not want to partake on his steel vintage Specialized dual suspension MTB bike. Hoping for the day he show interest and I can build him up a road bike too...

 Reply to topic     Send e-mail

dan emery
Joined: 11 Jan 2004
Posts: 6884
Location: Maine

5/14/13 2:47 PM

joint problems

>>The joint was always the trouble spot. So it seems the interface between the 2 materials are the challenge, tube or otherwise.<<

I dunno, I'm on my 9th season on an Ottrott (combination carbon and ti tubes, ti lugs). To me the bike is like new and I love it.

As to stiffness, I've ridden many bikes and I almost never notice it or the lack thereof. The only bike where I can say I've noticed bb flex is a '77 Colnago with light tubing and pencil thin stays. And that's one of my favorite bikes to ride.

 Reply to topic    

April
Joined: 13 Dec 2003
Posts: 6593
Location: Westchester/NYC

5/14/13 2:56 PM

I too, had a "hybrid" material bike, the TREK 2320. It worked flawlessly for 8 years, despite being driven over by a car! (ok, I only rode it home after the accident)

But one girl in our club had a ti/carbon Seven which the joint delaminated. And she heard of quite a few other similar stories.

So it's not like it'll fail 100%. But definitely much higher number of failure for people to take notice of.

 Reply to topic     Send e-mail

Sparky
Joined: 08 Dec 2003
Posts: 19068
Location: PDX

5/14/13 3:15 PM

When I got the Scandium Fuji Team Issue frame at the turn of the century I had a choice. I was offered the all welded aluminum, or the rear carbon stay frame depending if I chose the previous year or the next one that was just coming out.

I opted for the welds over a bond at top with bonds to aluminum ends that got bolted at the rear drop outs.

Just made no sense to me to bring all the mechanical fastening into the equation when welding IMO is better. If welded properly that is. Not had a weld fail on a frame yet...

 Reply to topic     Send e-mail

Dave B
Joined: 10 Jan 2004
Posts: 4511
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

5/14/13 3:48 PM

April is right. The carbon/metal joints by no means failed 100% of the time but they did often enough to be a significant problem.

Notice that all the carbon rear triangle/metal main triangle frames have disappeared from the market and there has to be a good reason.

 Reply to topic     Send e-mail

greglepore
Joined: 10 Jan 2004
Posts: 1724
Location: SE Pa, USA

5/14/13 5:02 PM

The cost of carbon fabrication is so seriously low now that it wouldn't make sense unless there was a performance advantage-still some mtb's built that way.

I ride a 50 or 51, so stiffness is a non issue. Deadness, however, is not, and the earlier monococque bikes had it in spades. Not any longer, I'm surprised how lively a cheap light carbon bike feels, none of the spring quality of steel though.

 Reply to topic     Send e-mail

dan emery
Joined: 11 Jan 2004
Posts: 6884
Location: Maine

5/14/13 5:26 PM

OTOH

The Ottrott still is being made in its original form as one of Serottas high end bikes and I am unaware of failure issues. In the 70s a friend had a carbon bike that came apart at the head tube/ top tube joint. That doesn't mean all carbon joints are bad.

 Reply to topic    

April
Joined: 13 Dec 2003
Posts: 6593
Location: Westchester/NYC

5/14/13 8:37 PM


quote:
In the 70s a friend had a carbon bike that came apart at the head tube/ top tube joint. That doesn't mean all carbon joints are bad.

Again, the all-carbon frames had a high failure rate in the early years. Not 100% failure, so not "all bad", just bad. ;-)

The difference is, the all-carbon frames had made significant improved over those early batches. The current crops of all-carbon frames all have quite good durability like their metal cousins. The same can't be said about the carbon "hybrids", which didn't seem to catch on. So I'm not sure how much, if any, improvement had been made on the metal-carbon interface front. I personally would still be suspicious of the reliability of those problematic joints. [/b]

Last edited by April on 5/14/13 8:38 PM; edited 1 time in total

 Reply to topic     Send e-mail

Dave B
Joined: 10 Jan 2004
Posts: 4511
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

5/14/13 8:37 PM


quote:
it wouldn't make sense unless there was a performance advantage-still some mtb's built that way.

Aren't those MTB's full suspension designs where the rear carbon section is a one-piece separate assembly and coupled to the main triangle only with pivot points, i.e. there are no metal-to-carbon bonded joints?


quote:
The Ottrott still is being made in its original form as one of Serottas high end bikes and I am unaware of failure issues. In the 70s a friend had a carbon bike that came apart at the head tube/ top tube joint. That doesn't mean all carbon joints are bad.

Serotta can afford to put painstaking care into those frames and use enough overlap and bond surface to have confidence in their reliability. That wasn't true of higher volume more mainstream makers. Sure, bonds can be durable but it's easier and more reliable if the same material is used on both sides of the joint. That said, what advantage, except for marketing-speak, did those metal-carbon frames have?

 Reply to topic     Send e-mail

Sparky
Joined: 08 Dec 2003
Posts: 19068
Location: PDX

5/14/13 8:47 PM

My biggest complaint with carbon has been finish durability, or lack of it rather.

I still think a TIG welded Powder Coated frame like what Carl Strong made me 13 years ago is everything a frame can be and durable finish like nothing else. What is an extra lb. after all. ;)

I just wish the price to have one made was not so damn much these days...

 Reply to topic     Send e-mail

Nick Payne
Joined: 10 Jan 2004
Posts: 2625
Location: Canberra, Australia

5/14/13 10:35 PM

Can't say I like stiff road frames under any circumstances. Nearly all our roads here, with the exception of multi-lane national highways, are chip seal surfaces where the less buzz the frame transmits the better - I've always found that the less the bike beats me up during the course of a race the better I go. My favourite ever racing frame was an SR Litage that I bought in the late 1980s: it used fairly small diameter aluminium tubing bonded into aluminium lugs and had a bonded aluminium fork. It's the most comfortable frame I've ever raced over indifferent road surfaces. I eventually had to retire it when 9-speed components came along, because the frame was built for 7-speed 126mm rear spacing, and I didn't think a bonded aluminium frame would take being set to 130mm.

 Reply to topic    

dan emery
Joined: 11 Jan 2004
Posts: 6884
Location: Maine

5/15/13 4:35 AM

Advantages?

>>That said, what advantage, except for marketing-speak, did those metal-carbon frames have?<<

Well all I know about is the bike I still ride, which is still being produced, which is my favorite all around road bike of the many I have ridden. The general advantages or disadvantages of different types of construction I leave to others. And I don't try to compare it to the many bikes I haven't ridden. I just know that it is a great bike and there is no problem with the joints. And to Sparky's point, the finish is still gorgeous in its 9th season in Maine.

OK, if you must know, it's stiff yet resilient. light yet strong, corners on rails and disappears beneath me...:)

And is it really true that only Serotta can afford "enough overlap and bond surface" to make sound joints? The others couldn't fit another couple of millimeters into the budget?

 Reply to topic    

greglepore
Joined: 10 Jan 2004
Posts: 1724
Location: SE Pa, USA

5/15/13 5:05 AM

To bring this full circle, the biggest current proponent of this technique is...

Seven

The 622 and Elium are their highest end bikes and carbon with ti lugs. I'm sure its partly looks, but there are weight advantages, adn you can easily tune the carbon diameter/thickness to rider or frame size.

 Reply to topic     Send e-mail


Return to CyclingForum Home Page CYCLING TECH TALK FORUM
           View New Threads Since My Last Visit VIEW THREADS SINCE MY LAST VISIT
           Start a New Thread

 Display posts from previous:   


Goto page 1, 2  Next  
Last Thread | Next Thread  >  

  
  

 


If you enjoy this site, please consider pledging your support

cyclingforum.com - where cyclists talk tech
Cycling TTF Rides Throughout The World

Cyclingforum is powered by SYNCRONICITY.NET in Denver, Colorado -

Powered by phpBB: Copyright 2006 phpBB Group | Custom phpCF Template by Syncronicity