Carbon Seat Stay Shape - Tuning Fork vs Triangle
10-12-13, 10:40 PM
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Carbon Seat Stay Shape - Tuning Fork vs Triangle
So back when Carbon Monocoque bikes were getting popular (about 15 years ago?) it seemed like most seat stays used the "tuning fork" arrangement. For example, take the Nashbar CR3. On this bike a single stay comes out of the seat tube, and splits into two smaller stays at the seat bridge. However, lately, lots of carbon bikes have moved back to the arrangement where the stays split right where they come from the seat tube, and the brake bridge forms its own carbon piece further down the stays. The Scott Foil has this arrangement, for example.
Is there any performance difference between these two arrangements? I'm guessing the tuning fork arrangement is cheaper / easier to make, but is there any functional difference.
Is there any performance difference between these two arrangements? I'm guessing the tuning fork arrangement is cheaper / easier to make, but is there any functional difference.
10-14-13, 12:54 AM
#2
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Bump. No insight or even speculation?
10-14-13, 07:58 AM
#4
Senior Member
On an absolute level if all other things wers equal there would have to be some small differences. But with carbon construction it is easy to alter the shape, thickness and/or composite lay up and all of this is going to have an effect on the final ride, weight and durability characteristics of a frame.
10-14-13, 10:09 AM
#5
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 28,682
Bikes: 1990 Romic Reynolds 531 custom build, Merlin Works CR Ti custom build, super light Workswell 066 custom build
Mentioned: 109 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6556 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 58 Times
in
36 Posts
I suspect the traditional seat stay arrangement is lighter than the tuning fork. As designers have searched for weight that could come off carbon frames, it has been desirable to return to the traditional setup.
