Does anyone have any feedback on either of these frames. I was originally considering the TCR series (loved the way it rode) and am now considering the Orca. Are there any huge differences between the two?
Giant vs. Orbea
Thu, 09/30/2004 - 7:09am
Thu, 09/30/2004 - 8:22am
#1
Differences?
Yes, $1,000 -$1100. The Giant is more compact then the Orca. Both are super frames. Get the Giant and save yourself a thousand dollars that you could put towards Dura Ace or Campy Record and a great wheelset and have a sub 16lb. bike.
Fri, 10/01/2004 - 11:33am
#2
Giant (nm)
Fri, 10/01/2004 - 7:36am
#3
Well, the geometries look similar in sensible sizes, though it's really hard to say, since neither manufacturer gives bottom bracket drop, fork rake, or trail figures.
Orbea geometry:
http://www.orbea-usa.com/geometry.aspx?img=CARBON_geometry.gif
Giant geometry:
http://www.giantbicycles.com/images/_upload_au/bikes/models/zooms/2005/0...
Based on the limited geometry offered on the web, I guess I'd say the Orbea looks a bit nicer since it has a longer headtube in most sizes, but OTOH, I think that you'd have to look at toptube length, too - the middle sized sizes of these bikes look like the top tube is 5mm of in either direction.
What size are you considering? I think I'd ride them both, and make a decision based on that. I don't think I'd buy a bike from a major manufacturer if I couldn't take it for a test ride. That's one of the benefits of riding a non-small-shop, or custom, less guesswork in the buying process.
Cheers,
- Christian
Rant on small bike sizes:
I have to say that the XS Giant and the 48cm Orbea have among the worst geometry of any small bikes I've ever seen, so if you're considering a bike of that size, stay AWAY from both of these. (Aside to those who care: the 48cm Orbea has a 69!!! degree headtube. Hello, Raleigh DL-1. While the TCR has a still stupid 71 degree headtube - coupled with a 75 degree seat tube -- that is, they really just shorten the top tube behind the bb, which won't help short people at all.)
When will people realize that you can't make a bike smaller than 52cm with 622mm ERD wheels (700c's) and have decent geometry???
Rant off.
Fri, 10/01/2004 - 10:27am
#4
The orca sure is purty. About the highest zoot looking bike I've ever seen. IMO, the coolest looking frame on the market by far.
While the giant is kind of hohum looking. (plus for some reason I don't like the looks of compact frames. maybe its because I'm already short and they look like miniature bikes but that's my hangup) So do you want to be the envy of everyone as you roll by or just blend in :-)?
on a serious note, there are other really nice carbon frames. I have an older Kestrel 200sci and absolutely love it. I don't really care for the looks of their newer frames but people seem to like them. If I was buying a new carbon bike right now, I'd also look very carefully at the Trek (excluding the me too factor: their manufacturing, R&D, and just the experience from selling so many have to make it a pretty seriously amazing frame.)
And personally I love nearly every model of the Look frames. And Calfee's one I'd really really look closely at.
I'd tend to go for the subtler looking bikes. Orcas, Colnagos, Merlins, etc seem to come with so much bagage. Why do I love passing them so much going up hills - especially on my cheap fixie? In my mind I taunt them for their gear choice or too clean matching euro bank advertising kit. Small ring up the hill in central park? Deep down I know it's really jealousy but it still feels sweeter than passing a cannondale!
;-)
Fri, 10/01/2004 - 11:31am
#5
Other really nice Carbon frames:
Hampsten by Parlee.
Alas, $3000+ for a frame. And you still gotta hang parts on it.
- Christian
Fri, 10/01/2004 - 12:31pm
#6
Fri, 10/01/2004 - 1:13pm
#7
Automatically disqualified
"Sorry, Evan, (despite the fact that it looks nice) it's automatically disqualified for using the following quotation as advertising copy,
""Stiff, yet vertically compliant [...]!""
Rant ON:
Hmm, let's measure the vertical compliance of an Aegis Shaman frame vs. the vertical compliance of a set of cross tires.
Ok, in the first test, we'll take the wheels off the bike and mount the bike on a stiff testbed. Then you'll sit on the seat, and we'll measure the vertical deflection at the top of the seat lug (to avoid measuring vertical compliance in the seat post and seat). Wow, it's 0.005mm.
In the second test, we'll remount the wheels and place the bike as is on a floor. Then you'll sit on top of the seat and we'll measure vertical deflection at the seat lug. Wow! It's like 4mm.
Note to anyone who is still with me: I know I am becoming a curmudgeon, I know, but anyone who tells you a bike is ""stiff, but vertically compliant"" is a liar. Unless the bike has suspension, in which case you'll see both the compliance (squish, squish) and the suspension!
RANT OFF.
Yours in cycling,
- Christian"
Fri, 10/01/2004 - 1:57pm
#8
So?
All of that is totally irrelevant. I want one, period.
Fri, 10/01/2004 - 2:51pm
#9
Well, there's no arguing with lust. I know I'll still be a slowpoke if I had a Pegoretti Big Leg Emma, but *damn* do I want one.
- Christian
Note to Ivy: Don't worry, I'm not getting a Pegoretti. At least until 2007.
Fri, 10/01/2004 - 7:34pm
#10
Remember when . . . .
"bicycles were given model names like ""Super"", ""Corsa"" and ""Paramount""?
Big Leg Emma? Great Googlee Mooglee? Does a Shaman frame intercede with a Manitou fork? Especially when you feather the brakes? Certainly the Orca must be the first time anyone ever tried to associate a lightweight bicycle with a whale. And at one point, Thorn had a model with extremely twitchy steering that they named -- aptly, but unconsciously -- the ""Nemesis"".
Before anyone asks: no, I have no idea if the ""Sock thing"" being discussed in the wet suit thread has anything to do with Pegoretti's Luigino. I'll leave that to those in the know.
Peter
"
Fri, 10/01/2004 - 8:20pm
#11
here...i'll save you some money...
Fri, 10/01/2004 - 2:22pm
#12
"I realize its all subjective marketing bs but maybe there's some truth to this?
When they say stiff they generally mean laterally stiff, right? If so, that's doable in a frame. Held flat, a 1"" x 8"" wooden plank bends vertically but not latterally. Tube shapes and carbon layouts can be built with that same goal in mind. An ovalized tube will bend differently vertically and horizontally.
My kestrel is extremely forgiving on rough roads. You can clearly feel it compared to other bikes. Yet out of the saddle, around the bottom bracket, it seems pretty solid. You can't get much deflection when you stand on the pedals and try to twist the frame with your weight.
I always figured that's the kind of thing they meant by compliant yet stiff."
Fri, 10/01/2004 - 2:49pm
#13
"Hi Bill,
The issue is, a bike isn't built like a single 1x8 or tube. It's basically a truss. And the chainstay/seatstay/bb/seattube/axle portion is a tetrahedron. Explain to me _where_ the deflection in a rear triangle happens (soft-tails, and DKS excepted), and I'll believe you.
But, better yet, you can test it out by rigging up a simple test bed just like I described. I'll let you borrow two nice steel bikes as another sample. Suffice to say, the vertical deflection (measured at the seatlug) of any of the bikes will be on the order of the thickness of a sheet of paper, regardless of the material of the bike.
I don't know what ""forgiving"" means, so I can't really speculate on why you like your Kestrel more on rough roads. Different tires/tubes and longer chainstays than whatever bike you're comparing to would be the immediate suspicion.
- Christian
PS: If you're afraid to mount your bikes on a test rig, another fun thing to do would be to build a bicycle-frame mockup of 1x8s and see how much we could get the chainstays/ seatstays/seattube/axle to deflect. I'll bet on less than 1 cm. I'll buy the beers, if you buy the 1x8s. No one uses the basement in my building anyway..."
Fri, 10/01/2004 - 7:46pm
#14
stiff, yet vertically compliant
Hi Christian,
Vertical compliance doesn't need to take place in the chainstay/seatstay/bb/seattube/axle tetrahedron.
That section of the bike can be as stiff as possible, yet the bike still be vertically compliant. An extreme example of this is a slingshot bike: http://slingshotbikes.com A slingshot is very compliant both vertically and laterally yet the rear end is stiff. I've had the opportunity to ride a slingshot mountain bike extensively, so I know. At that time (1993-1994), some other bikes would have rear ends that were so flexible that they would shift during hard pedaling. The slingshot had no such problems.
I'm not sure that I understand the point you are making. I agree with your other comment that wheels add the largest amount of vertical compliance to the system. I'd say a carbon fork adds the second most amount of vertical compliance to the system. This has little to do with a stiff rear triangle. If I had to guess, I'd say the top tube and down tube are where the rest of the vertical compliance comes from. The rear triangle is where the pedaling stiffness comes from.
If you pedal smoothly (in circles), than a stiff rear triangle is all you need to be efficient. The vertical compliance only dampens the ride. At least, that is what Slingshot wants you to think.
Anyways, let me know what you mean. Thanks!
Fri, 10/01/2004 - 8:26pm
#15
"Hi Ben,
I'm going to try and answer point-by-point, so as to not miss anything:
B> Vertical compliance doesn't need to take place in the
B> chainstay/seatstay/bb/seattube/axle tetrahedron.
No, but you'll notice that almost all manufacturers, when talking about vertical compliance, the chainstays and seatstays are what they ""tweak"" to make it happen. I say that's all BS. _And_ (this to get to your later ponits) in order for the seatlug to move vertically up and down, that tetrahedron must move.
I mean, if you don't accept the premise that the seatlug is the focus of ""vertical compliance"" then what's the point? That handlebars move up and down? BFD. I can design a crappy noodly stem. We've all seen that.
B> An extreme example of this is a slingshot bike:
B> http://slingshotbikes.com A slingshot is very
B> compliant both vertically and laterally yet the rear B> end is stiff.
Have you measured the deflection of a Slingshot front triangle? I take it that your supposition of how the Slingshot works is that the entire rear triangle pivots forward when the downwire is under greatest tension. That's what the Slingshot site used to claim anyway, that it functioned like a high URT. Now, they simply omit any engineering claims at all.
B> At that time (1993-1994), some other bikes would have
B> rear ends that were so flexible that they would shift
B> during hard pedaling. The slingshot had no such
B> problems.
Don't confuse lateral loading (rotation) of the bottom bracket with rear triangle vertical deflection. The former is easily observable with ones own eyes, and can be observed by listening to the chain scrape the f.d. on lots of bikes when climbing out of the saddle.
The ""problem"" with those other bikes wasn't that they were compressing their seat stays and deflecting vertically. It's that the bottom bracket rotates. And having ridden a 650c Slingshot roadbike in college, I found it to be one of the noodliest things in the world. BB rotation city!
B> I'd say a carbon fork adds the second most amount of B> vertical compliance to the system.
First off, I didn't say ""wheels."" I said ""tires."" For this discussion, wheels, like the frame, are approximately infinitely stiff. As far as the fork, I'd be delighted to see a measurement of the vertical deflection in a fork. Again, I suggest it will be on the order of 1/10% as significant as the deflection in the tires.
B> This has little to do with a stiff rear triangle. If
B> I had to guess, I'd say the top tube and down tube
B> are where the rest of the vertical compliance comes
B> from. The rear triangle is where the pedaling
B> stiffness comes from.
I am afraid I have no idea what you're saying here. You're claiming that there is vertical compliance in the front of the bike, that allows the seatlug to move down/up, while the rear triangle is stiff, and doesn't allow that. Does the seat lug move up/down by a significant amount, or doesn't it? (By significant, I mean on the order of 1/2 to 1/10 as much as the deflection in the tires.)
B> The vertical compliance only dampens the ride. At
B> least, that is what Slingshot wants you to think.
Yes, and Seven, and Specialized, and so on. But that's contradicted by the theory and the tests (Rinard, Brandt) that have been done.
- Christian
"
Sat, 10/02/2004 - 6:57am
#16
> That's what the Slingshot site used to claim anyway,
> that it functioned like a high URT.
High-pivot URT, of course.
- Christian
Sat, 10/02/2004 - 1:18pm
#17
vertical compliance
Hi Christian,
I mostly agree with what you say. However, your point-by-point rebuttal missed the very first point which summarizes my argument:
B> Vertical compliance doesn't need to take
B> place in the chainstay/seatstay/bb/seattube/axle
B> tetrahedron.
I agree that a lousy rear triangle leads to a noodly ride. I agree that the slingshot also rides like a wet-noodle, although I blame this on the lack of a down tube, not the rear triangle. Cornering on a Slingshot mountain bike is a scary experience because of the rear wheel tracks independently of the front wheel.
I'm going to define what vertical compliance is. Since it's a marketing BS word (something we also both agree with), there's a lot of room for interpretation and you may have a different definition than me.
Vertical Compliance: The resilience of a bicycle to high frequency road bumps and to single large bumps.
You are riding down a hill at 30MPH and you ride over cracks in the asphalt. What you feel or don't feel depends upon the vertical compliance of your bike.
I don't think it has anything to do with how far you can vertically deflect the seat lug. That is something mentioned in all of your comments that I don't understand. Vertical compliance takes place between the road and your butt/hands/feet. What does this have to do with the seat lug and how it moves? It has to do with how the bicycle damps vibrations and adsorbs large bumps.
How does the bicycle damp vibrations and adsorb large bumps?
Through materials selection and frame/part design.
Materials:
Carbon fiber composites lend themselves nicely to adsorb vibrations. The carbon fibers in a polymer matrix move differently from each other and create a lot of friction. The separate layers also behave differently than each other causing a lot of friction. This friction adsorbs the energy of the vibrations, damping them. Most composite materials have this property. Metal alloys tend to be more homogenous, so there is less internal friction when flexing the material. Less friction means less resilience. Certain alloys can be made to be more resiliant (by changing crystal structure or grain size) but they will still be far from as resilient as a composite material.
Design:
Even though I didn't like the overall feel of a Slingshot, it was excellent at one thing: Standing in the pedals, sprinting across a grassy field. It adsorbed the grass vibrations to an extent that I've never experienced on a full-suspension or hardtail bike. The Slingshot that I rode didn't even have front suspension. That is compliance by design. The seat lug may not move much vertically during that sprint, but the bike adsorbed the bumps impressively.
Another example of compliance by design is in my road bike. My bianchi's down tube is ovalized near the bottom bracket (wide side to side, narrow front to back) to eliminate BB sway. Why don't they just use a larger tube or ovalize the entire length of the tube? They want the bike to be compliant side-to-side near the headtube.
Finally, you mention that we can assume the wheels are infinitely stiff for this argument. It would be nonsense to say that a disk wheel rides identically to a traditional spoked wheel. Or even that a radially laced wheel rides identically to a 3-cross pattern laced wheel. Remember that spokes are only in tension. Using longer spokes (in a 3-cross pattern) allows the spokes to stretch farther than using shorter spokes (radially laced 0-cross pattern). The energy of hitting a pothole might only stretch your spokes 0.01% of their total length, but 0.01% of a longer length is a farther distance than 0.01% of a shorter length. For elastic deformations (something that doesn't break your wheel) the force to distance is linear, so if a 3-cross spoke that is 3% longer than a radial spoke can adsorb 3% more energy before it breaks. The deflection of a wheel might still be small fo
Sat, 10/02/2004 - 5:18pm
#18
"Hi Ben,
(This is getting to be tough to quote/comment. I wish there was a quote function on this message board.)
Anyway:
Ben> Vertical compliance doesn't need to take
Ben> place in the chainstay/seatstay/bb/seattube/axle
Ben> tetrahedron.
Well, I think this gets us on the road to understanding. More in a bit.
Ben> I'm going to define what vertical compliance is.
Ben> Since it's a marketing BS word (something we also
Ben> both agree with), there's a lot of room for
Ben> interpretation and you may have a different
Ben> definition than me.
I do.
Ben> Vertical Compliance: The resilience of a bicycle to
Ben> high frequency road bumps and to single large bumps.
I agree with the latter, but not the former. I think there are possibly significant differences with respect to the amplification or dampening of road ""buzz"" with respect to different frame materials. Certainly a wood bicycle will ride diferrently than one made of steel tubes. But vibration and ""vertical compliance"" aren't the same.
Ben> You are riding down a hill at 30MPH and you ride
Ben> over cracks in the asphalt. What you feel or don't
Ben> feel depends upon the vertical compliance of your
Ben> bike. I don't think it has anything to do with how Ben> far you can vertically deflect the seat lug. That Ben> is something mentioned in all of your comments that Ben> I don't understand. Vertical compliance takes
Ben> place between the road and your butt/hands/feet.
But where?! The vertical deflection of a frame is less than a tenth of a millimeter. I'm suggesting that the vertical deflection of a fork is similar. The vertical deflection of a wheel is approximately 0.15mm (Brandt, _The_Bicycle_Wheel, 3rd Ed. 1993). The deflection of a tire, on the other hand is 20-30-40mm (me, sitting on bike and eyeing it)! The deflection of my seat is probably 10mm (me, again). The idea that a bike frame made from one material rather than another contributes anything to the vertical deflection experienced by the riders butt seems to me prima facie ridiculous, despite Rob Vandermarks magic seatstays or a truckfull of Zertz inzertz.
Ben> What does this have to do with the seat lug and how
Ben> it moves? It has to do with how the bicycle damps
Ben> vibrations and adsorbs large bumps.
No on vibrations (as I've discussed above), but yes on large bumps. Where does the ""absorption"" of the bumps happen in the frame? If I ride down a cobbled street, will I absorb enough energy in the frame to heat it up?
Ben> (carbon fiber's vibration dampening qualities
Ben> snipped)
We agree that carbon fiber/wood/fiberglass are better vibration dampeners than steel/alloy tubes. But that isn't vertical compliance.
Ben> That is compliance by design. The seat lug may not
Ben> move much vertically during that sprint, but the
Ben> bike adsorbed the bumps impressively.
I'm not surprised that it absorbed bumps well. After all, it's a suspension bike!
Ben> Another example of compliance by design is in my
Ben> road bike. My bianchi's down tube is ovalized near
Ben> the bottom bracket (wide side to side, narrow front
Ben> to back) to eliminate BB sway. Why don't they just
Ben> use a larger tube or ovalize the entire length of
Ben> the tube? They want the bike to be compliant side-
Ben> to-side near the headtube.
Your Bianchi looks like my MXL! :) Lateral stiffness or compliance is definitely tunable by tube shapes. But a bike isn't built like a triangulated truss in the sideways direction -- it's a single plane. Put the bike frame sideways on the floor your feet on the seat lug and bottom bracket, and yank up on the headtube and you'll ruin it in short order. Place it vertically, supported at the front and rear dropouts and jump up and down on the seat lug (be careful!). Call me when you get"
Sat, 10/02/2004 - 6:46pm
#19
Can you accommodate another skeptic??
"Christian will have his own reply, and it will be more erudite than mine. But hey, I can't help myself.
""I agree that a lousy rear triangle leads to a noodly ride.""
I actually have some doubts about this, but only because I suspect the whole ""flexy rear triangle"" issue is massively overblown. OKOK, pencil-thin stays with a cheapo rack and fifty pounds in the panniers will be a problem, but beyond that? Builders have always had the tech to build stiffer rear triangles if they needed to -- just use bigger tubes. Too harsh? Ovalize 'em: the industry says it works. But by and large they don't use nearly as big tubes as they could, which makes me think this is a marketing slogan in search of a problem. Frankly, I suspect most ""flexy"" rear triangles are actually flexy BBs resulting from underbuilt main triangles.
""I agree that the slingshot also rides like a wet-noodle, although I blame this on the lack of a down tube, not the rear triangle.""
Yup. It wasn't just any tube that they chose to replace with a wire -- it was the one that is always the largest and most overbuilt tube in the set.
You define:
""Vertical Compliance: The resilience of a bicycle to high frequency road bumps and to single large bumps. You are riding down a hill at 30MPH and you ride over cracks in the asphalt. What you feel or don't feel depends upon the vertical compliance of your bike.""
You have to be more rigorous than that. The discussion presupposes that vertical compliance is a property of the frame, not the bike. By your definition, the stiffest frame in the world can be very ""compliant"" if fitted out with a 35mm tires, a sprung Brooks saddle, a suspension seatpost and a flex-stem. In practical effect, that is in fact true. But it end-runs the whole discussion.
""I don't think it has anything to do with how far you can vertically deflect the seat lug."" Yeah it does, but you could look at the head lug as well. Imagine the frame rolling along between two wheels. It hits a bump, creating a (partially) upwards movement. Either the seat lug moves by a like amount (or, more precisely, the amount dictated by the relevant geometry and force vectors without allowance for any ""give"" in the frame) or it does not. If the former, the frame is not ""vertically compliant"".
""It has to do with how the bicycle damps vibrations and adsorbs large bumps.""
Typically, the literature treats bump absorption and vibration damping as separate things. Although I've seen a lot of talk about vibration-damping abilities of different materials, I haven't seen anything terribly satisfactory about the vibration-damping abilities of frame/fork systems as such; let alone the degree to which any benefit is drowned out by small differences in frame geometry, to say nothing of pneumatic tires, saddle, cork tape, gloves, etc. So there may be something there, but I'm skeptical.
""Another example of compliance by design is in my road bike. My bianchi's down tube is ovalized near the bottom bracket (wide side to side, narrow front to back) to eliminate BB sway. Why don't they just use a larger tube or ovalize the entire length of the tube? They want the bike to be compliant side-to-side near the headtube.""
I doubt it. I think they want it to be as strong as possible there, because that's where frames break. So they revert to a round tube.
Some amount of torsional flexibility gives a frame what's often called ""liveliness"", and a frame without it may well feel ""dead"". But it's hard to imagine why anyone would want to add lateral compliance to a frame. Too bad: for this particular version of an on-edge truss, a bit of vertical compliance is somewhat desirable but hard to achieve; lateral compliance is easily achieved but rarely if ever desirable.
"
Mon, 10/04/2004 - 10:53am
#20
Fri, 10/01/2004 - 11:06am
#21
Giant Tcr carbon
I have one of those Tcr's and they are great bikes for their value...
the ride is solid and confortable and the climbing is awesome... my only 2 complains is one at the front end that tends to be a bit too lively and nervous on fast descents and the other for the cheap paint/decoration, almost as bad as Trek's.
I also ride a C40 and have had experience on Trek 5200, Pinarello Prince, look 361 and Specialized SWorks and still think that the Giant is the best value for the ride/money you can find out there.
hope that helps!
Manuel
Sun, 10/03/2004 - 10:35am
#22
Thanks Manuel
Hey Manuel,
When the heck do you have time to ride all your bikes?!
Thanks for the input. I think i need to go test ride the bikes some more.
Shelby
