don d.

Over the years, one of the most difficult aspects of a bicycle to quantify has been stiffness and strength of a bicycle frame. Generally all we as consumers have to go on is road testing by consumer mags and word of mouth referrals. These are both subjective.

The only real objective criteria traditionally has been materials specifications, Ksi, Young's Modulus, etc... to guide us in selecting products we think will suit our needs. This objective criteria can often be misrepresented by manufacturers and marketing people to sway the layman towards their products.

Engineering for Bicycles, www.efbe.de/defbefrm.htm, has attempted to provide an objective set of standards that the layman can use to evaluate variables such as stiffness and potential longevity of specific products and materials.

In a nutshell, Efb has set 3 standards for bicycle frames that can be used as a point of reference to help consumers project longevity and suitability in frames on the market. These 3 standards are Top, High, and Standard. The parameters that must be met to achieve these standards are available at Efb's website, but suffice to say that the High standard appears to be more than adequate for all but the most committed cobble riders.

Testing has been done now for over 5 years, going back to at least '99, and including all types of frames from many different manufacturers. Damon Rinard uses some of their info in an oft quoted article comparing the differences in frame materials.

Unfortunately, industry spin masters continue to deconstruct info presented by Efb for their own advantage.

Take for example marketing claims by Cervelo. In their Q&A section at their website they talk about how their frames passed the rigid standards set by Efb while many titanium frames failed. Cervelo does not state that their frames did not meet the Top standard, only that their frames "passed" Efb's rigid standards. No titanium frame tested failed to meet the High standard(100,000 cycles at 1200n).

In fact, in the Efb chart, one titanium frame is listed as passing the Top standard while no Cervelo frames are shown to have passed the Top standard. Another titanium frame is shown to have passed the High standard, which is the same standard Cervelo was able to achieve with some of their frames.

Efb does not publish failure data although one can assume that if a frame passed the High standard but not the Top standard it failed somewhere between the two or was only tested to the lower standard. Damon Rinards article, posted at the Efb site, has failure data on two titanium frames, both which exceeded the minimum standard for the High rating, the same rating Cervelo achieves.

What is the point? The point is to read carefully and assume nothing. Marketing people can make statements that sound true, but are in fact incomplete.

531Aussie

I thought the Cervelos were the first steel frames to ever pass any level of any EFBe test. Surely that counts for somethin'

don d.

They in fact aren't the only steel frame to meet/exceed the High standard set by EFBe. See my post in Steel bikes under $2000.00.

But what they did achieve does count for something to me. It means that the frames tested were probably pretty good frames, and if they are a representative sample of Cervelo's frames, Cervelo frames are probably pretty good.

Still, I think Cervelo is engaging in more than a little obfuscation with the retoric on their website, which is why I posted this clarification.

I think their story about how the Super Prodigy came about is funny. "Well, we were sent the wrong tubes, but we used them anyway, and fortunately they worked out and since they did work out we're coming clean now and letting you know that the new, wrong tubing is now the right tubing."

Ok.

pgreene

i wish i'd paid more attention in physics. don, you mentioned in your first post that "high" should be more than adequate for 99% of the planet. what i wonder is what on earth is the point of the "top" standard? does anyone keep a bike like that long enough to break it? the more objective stuff i read, the more i realize that ultimately, frame material is a personal preference. empirically, there just isn't one "best" material. but it's good to know people are trying to resolve it anyway.

don d.

...Have to ask EFBe that. Thay came up with the standards. I would think that since some frames were capable of meeting this higher standard, it was created.

SchreiberBike

It is safe to assume that a person who is trying to sell you something is trying to sell you something. I wouldn't make any other assumptions.

I don't think the bicycle industry is worse than automobiles or dish soap. Intelligent consumers can still make good decisions based on information from a wide variety of sources.

joeprim

Great site Thanks. Cannondale passed the Top test with both mtb and road bikes. I thought all Cannondale bikes were alum. If so I'm impressed I wouldn't have thought alum. would go that far.

Joe

Avalanche325

This is interesting information. However, I don't feel that the most important information is given: which frames failed.

It comes down to this. These guys are selling something also. Their certification sticker. This is basically "peace of mind" marketing. Let's see the truth. The WHOLE truth.