Bike Forums

Bike Forums (http://www.bikeforums.net/forum.php)
-   Road Cycling (http://www.bikeforums.net/road-cycling/)
-   -   Greatness of Pinarello, are they truely that great? (http://www.bikeforums.net/road-cycling/938085-greatness-pinarello-they-truely-great.html)

Garfield Cat 03-22-14 05:50 AM

Skip the Pinarello and go to Cervelo. Where's Pcad?

bikerjp 03-22-14 10:25 AM

I'd rather have this.

http://colnago.com/wp-content/upload...italia-022.jpg

Avispa 03-22-14 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hbrown (Post 16598694)
Please correct me if I am wrong, But the UCI weight limit is 14.99 lbs. This is the lowest weight of every bike you see the pro's ride in sanctioned races. Only the public (Us) ride bikes lower than 14.99 lbs. My Pinarello comes in at 15.62 lbs, completely built with all of the electronics, pedals, bar tape, bottle cages, . Basicaly pull over and get off bike, Grab water bottles, put on scale, weight. I don't think .63 lbs make it a boat anchor.

I think Pinarello builds its bikes to function at the UCI leval of weight. Not to be the lightest, but to function at the best leval it possibly can, at the required weight. Not for bragging rights. (my bike weighs 14 lbs, but rides like a broom)And brag ( I weigh 400 lbs but my bike weighs 11lbs, but to take a turn I have to unclip , put my foot down and pray, My frame does not make that cracking sound again).

My Assasin comes in at 14.51 lbs, I can not ride it in any event without adding weight to it, by UCI standards. Purpose built. But I will reach for the Pinarello without pause for any ride that truly counts. But like anything , Please ride one and form your own opinion. I am writing my opinion for others to read, I rode one, own one, and now sing its praises.

I think its nice to build the best 14.99 lbs (goal) bike out there.

Hey Brown,

i've seen some Pinas that are around 8.5kgs and in size 55.
Are your bike small or?

How tall are you and what size are you on?

I am 1817mm long and inseam is over 890mm.

I had a good deal at Pina frames. But when i was mature enough to understand that i needed to part from my Foil, i had to dig deeper into what i needed talking size. I am no fan of any specific make, so it was a big market.

Now, if i say i ride with a saddle height of 795mm and from ground and up the bikes saddle is between 1030 and 1035mm.
Having the left crankarm in line with seatmast tube, measured at bottom of pedal platform to top of saddle is approximatedly 960mm +.
Now, i have a curved saddle, so it pends a bit on where i take measurements.

From saddle nose to headcap bolt, 450mm. From ground to handlebar top is 930mm + (measured at hoods grip).
This is a saddle to bar drop of over 100mm. My top tube is 568mm and my headtube is whopping 206mm.
Now, i also have a BB drop of 78mm. If BB drop had been 70mm instead, i've had have my drop from saddle to handlebar at 110mm.

How do i find a typical mass produced bike with these numbers? I don't!
So when i pay as much for my custom made frame as for a mass produced frame, i think there is an answer why i went this route. I was told from the dealer for Pina in my part of Scandinavia, there is a Pina for everyone with all there sizes.
I did not find that size without using lots of spacers (which i dislike).
Best match was actually Bianchi Infinito CV, size 59.
My bike is 7570g with bottle cages, a bike computer and pedals.
I added an AX Lighness Helios fork and MCFK ISP to help get this weight.
Wheels are Mavic CCU 2014, i think it cost to much to lower the weight of 1185g a pair.
I was also told, lighter weight make wheels flex. That is why Mavics Ultimate are not even lighter.

I have no clue if this is correct!? There are lots of nice wheels now, but i will keep calm now.

surgeonstone 03-22-14 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by merlinextraligh (Post 16574745)
Personally, the Salvador Dali look kills it for me.

This, plus the fact that all great bikes are great.

Hbrown 03-23-14 09:01 AM

Uhh, What are you asking? I am 5'11 3/4. I ride a 56cm frame. I have a short torso and long legs. I use a 175 cank, a 44cm handlebar, and a 80 cm stem. As far as the other measurements I just got a fitting. But this is a little off topic.

What the origanal OP asked was, If Pinarello bikes are really as great as they are made out to be? I say Yes. My opnion, Ride one and form your own.

coasting 03-23-14 09:27 AM

i've only heard people say good things about pinarello but i will never ever be seen on a bike with wiggly tubes.

ColnagoC40 05-28-14 07:03 AM

Fashion overtook function about 15 years ago.

Except of course when some of the US made frames are so light that folks start debating whether the cracks they see are paint, or carbon fiber cracks. The manufacturer would tell you that he uses a thin vapor coat to save weight, but when a crack shows up, it is cosmetic and it is just the paint.

Best fashion statement due to all its heritage right now IMHO is a C60.

Then comes all the functional hype full of myths:

Overly fat tubes with a special shape are more aero, compared to thin round tubes used 20 years ago. Even if the footprint is 3 times bigger?

Ahh. Stiffness, the main myth. If you flex a spring within its elastic limits, all the energy you put in, comes back with a zero nett loss effect. But on a bicycle frame you lose power?? Ask Sean Kelly, who won several tours, with a brilliant career, on a noodle, or was it a toothpick. Perhaps a pretzel?

Some frames are "fast", some are "responsive", you never hear about the slow ones though?

Some still like steel, because it just tastes different.

And in the end, fashion over function is making a lot of money for a lot of folks, with the majority taking advantage of cheap labor overseas.

Finally, to answer the OP, the Dogma is pretty high up on the fashion ladder right now, what more do you want than riding a famous TDF frame?

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

I <3 Robots 05-28-14 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MinnMan (Post 16576409)
If you're spending that kind of coin, you are not going to get a bad bike, whatever brand you choose. Sure, some have a little edge in design/stiffness/weight etc. but once you are north of $10k, it's going to be mostly a matter of taste and fit. Perhaps quite a bit before you get to $10k. Maybe north of $5 k?

This is what I think also. Once you reach that upper end (even mid point) price point...you're not going to get a bad frame. At that point...it's basically who you want to spend your money with.

rpeterson 05-28-14 02:07 PM

I spent a week on a rented Dogma with Super Record 11.

With my own wheels and saddle it didn't feel that much different than anything else I've ridden.

Overly fat tubes with a special shape are more aero, compared to thin round tubes used 20 years ago. Even if the footprint is 3 times bigger?

Yes, that's completely true, aerodynamically speaking round things are horrible, giant airfoil shaped tubes are far more aerodynamic, tiny thin airfoil shaped things would be better though. This isn't a myth, it's fact, and easily verifiable fact at that.

sfrider 05-28-14 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hbrown (Post 16603195)
Uhh, What are you asking? I am 5'11 3/4. I ride a 56cm frame. I have a short torso and long legs. I use a 175 cank, a 44cm handlebar, and a 80 cm stem. As far as the other measurements I just got a fitting. But this is a little off topic.

What the origanal OP asked was, If Pinarello bikes are really as great as they are made out to be? I say Yes. My opnion, Ride one and form your own.

I'm 6'0 with a short torso and long inseam, and also ride a 56cm Pinarello, 175 cranks, with a 105 or 110 (I'd have to check) stem with compact 44cm bars.

I love it, but who knows what someone else will like or not.

calgarc 05-28-14 02:58 PM

I am pretty sure the Chinese have mastered how to make our crap by now.

CenturionIM 05-28-14 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Dopolina (Post 16576424)
But, oh yeah, the man is out go get you and is just ripping you off...they all come out of one factory in China...

You better believe Bob, he works for the said factory.

I <3 Robots 05-28-14 05:41 PM

Your prayers have been answered...lighter and stiffer.

Pinarello announce Dogma F8 | road.cc

cruiserhead 05-28-14 05:55 PM

Pinarello run low head tubes and longish top tubes, so they are good for racing and getting the position low enough.

In the US, and EU, Pinarello has cracked down on the counterfeits. I read something about that a few days ago.
The China crap has ruined the secondary market for any genuine Pinarello owners already. How can anyone trust it's genuine...
I'll never buy one.

dunnojack 05-28-14 11:46 PM

For what it's worth, I use to own a Dogma 2, sold it, got on a bunch of other bikes: Look 695 SR, BMC SLR01, Colnago C59, Colnago M10, Parlee Z5, C-dale Super 6 Evo, Litespeed L1R, Argon 18 Gallium Pro... list goes on.... Right now, I own a Dogma 65.1. After trying out tons of bikes, the Dogma 65.1 just presents a great solid feel, no "pendulum" effect when climbing in saddle, super stable handling, and just a rocket when you put the power down. Only bike that's been comparable to this so far in my experience is the Cipollini RB1000 and RB800.

I'm excited to see how this new Pinarello Dogma F8 will be, sounds like a great bike although I'm not digging the head tube too much...

Bob Dopolina 05-29-14 01:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cruiserhead (Post 16800560)
In the US, and EU, Pinarello has cracked down on the counterfeits. I read something about that a few days ago.
The China crap has ruined the secondary market for any genuine Pinarello owners already. How can anyone trust it's genuine...
I'll never buy one.

That's actually a really good point.

Bob Dopolina 05-29-14 01:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by calgarc (Post 16800096)
I am pretty sure the Chinese have mastered how to make our crap by now.

Not on a consistent basis.

That is the problem with a great deal of Chinese manufacturing. If you want to produce a million chotchkies with very low tolerances for cheap, China is the place to be. If you want to do lower volume with tighter tolerances then, for the most part, you need to do it somewhere else or find one of the really good vendors there.

bruce19 05-29-14 06:03 AM

Whatever you do make sure your bike is the lightest one in the neighborhood.

How Lightweight Do You NEED Your Bike To Be?

bruce19 05-29-14 06:06 AM

Of course you could build a custom steel bike at under 18 lbs and pocket the money saved. :) FWIW my Guru with SRAM Rival (except for the Red crank) and Ksyrium Elite wheels weighs 18.1 lbs.

calgarc 05-29-14 06:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Dopolina (Post 16801456)
Not on a consistent basis.

That is the problem with a great deal of Chinese manufacturing. If you want to produce a million chotchkies with very low tolerances for cheap, China is the place to be. If you want to do lower volume with tighter tolerances then, for the most part, you need to do it somewhere else or find one of the really good vendors there.

well my chinese made ibanez guitar sure kicks ass :D

ColnagoC40 05-29-14 06:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rpeterson (Post 16799905)
I spent a week on a rented Dogma with Super Record 11.

Overly fat tubes with a special shape are more aero, compared to thin round tubes used 20 years ago. Even if the footprint is 3 times bigger?

Yes, that's completely true, aerodynamically speaking round things are horrible, giant airfoil shaped tubes are far more aerodynamic, tiny thin airfoil shaped things would be better though. This isn't a myth, it's fact, and easily verifiable fact at that.

For turbulent flow, the Cd of a round pipe is approximately 0.3

For turbulent flow, the Cd of an optimized aero bike tube, far ahead of anything in the market today is approximately 0.1 (Length to diameter 8 times and aerofoil shape)

So, it follows that the advantage for the same frontal area is 3 times better for the aero tube, using same tube fatness. (frontal area)

For frontal area though, there is a square, as area is inches square. So it follows that for a tube three times fatter, the frontal area is 3 squared times more = 9. And 9 x 0.1 = 0.9, where 1 x 0.3 is still 0.3.

It follows that the fat absolutely aero optimized tube will have 3 times more drag, if it is 3 times fatter, compared to the skinny round tube.

If it was the same diameter, it would have 3 times less drag than the round tube, if it was twice the diameter, it would be round 0.3, fat aero 0.4.

The calculation for drag:

Drag force = 1/2 x air density x air velocity squared x coefficient of drag x frontal area

As the only variables in the above comparison are coefficient of drag Cd and frontal area A, we can ignore the rest.

That explains why my 15 year old Colnago, with Rolf wheels freewheels faster than my buddy's new Trek Madone 7, we are the same build, same height, just different wheels and frames. All the marketing folks will disagree with me though, as their life is built around "perceptions".

PS. We have swapped bikes downhill, same thing, the Colnago freewheels faster.

Bob Dopolina 05-29-14 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by calgarc (Post 16801678)
well my chinese made ibanez guitar sure kicks ass :D

Like I said, in any industry there are a few good Chinese vendors. Then there are the rest...

sced 05-29-14 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ColnagoC40 (Post 16801770)
For turbulent flow, the Cd of a round pipe is approximately 0.3

For turbulent flow, the Cd of an optimized aero bike tube, far ahead of anything in the market today is approximately 0.1 (Length to diameter 8 times and aerofoil shape)

So, it follows that the advantage for the same frontal area is 3 times better for the aero tube, using same tube fatness. (frontal area)

For frontal area though, there is a square, as area is inches square. So it follows that for a tube three times fatter, the frontal area is 3 squared times more = 9. And 9 x 0.1 = 0.9, where 1 x 0.3 is still 0.3.

It follows that the fat absolutely aero optimized tube will have 3 times more drag, if it is 3 times fatter, compared to the skinny round tube.

If it was the same diameter, it would have 3 times less drag than the round tube, if it was twice the diameter, it would be round 0.3, fat aero 0.4.

The calculation for drag:

Drag force = 1/2 x air density x air velocity squared x coefficient of drag x frontal area

As the only variables in the above comparison are coefficient of drag Cd and frontal area A, we can ignore the rest.

That explains why my 15 year old Colnago, with Rolf wheels freewheels faster than my buddy's new Trek Madone 7, we are the same build, same height, just different wheels and frames. All the marketing folks will disagree with me though, as their life is built around "perceptions".

PS. We have swapped bikes downhill, same thing, the Colnago freewheels faster.

Thanks! I knew this too but was too lazy to type it in. People believe what they need to to feel good about themselves, including a lot of wives' tales like "you get what you pay for". Marketeers seem to conveniently leave out important facts when pushing their wares on unknowledgeable people that want to slurp up the hype. Imagine what bike ads would look like if they had to include something like the stream of caveats you see in pharma ads.

Young Version 05-29-14 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ColnagoC40 (Post 16801770)
For turbulent flow, the Cd of a round pipe is approximately 0.3

For turbulent flow, the Cd of an optimized aero bike tube, far ahead of anything in the market today is approximately 0.1 (Length to diameter 8 times and aerofoil shape)

So, it follows that the advantage for the same frontal area is 3 times better for the aero tube, using same tube fatness. (frontal area)

For frontal area though, there is a square, as area is inches square. So it follows that for a tube three times fatter, the frontal area is 3 squared times more = 9. And 9 x 0.1 = 0.9, where 1 x 0.3 is still 0.3.

It follows that the fat absolutely aero optimized tube will have 3 times more drag, if it is 3 times fatter, compared to the skinny round tube.

If it was the same diameter, it would have 3 times less drag than the round tube, if it was twice the diameter, it would be round 0.3, fat aero 0.4.

The calculation for drag:

Drag force = 1/2 x air density x air velocity squared x coefficient of drag x frontal area

As the only variables in the above comparison are coefficient of drag Cd and frontal area A, we can ignore the rest.

That explains why my 15 year old Colnago, with Rolf wheels freewheels faster than my buddy's new Trek Madone 7, we are the same build, same height, just different wheels and frames. All the marketing folks will disagree with me though, as their life is built around "perceptions".

PS. We have swapped bikes downhill, same thing, the Colnago freewheels faster.

I'm inclined to think there are more factors at play here. Rider position would have a MUCH larger effect on your descending speed than aero.

ColnagoC40 05-29-14 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Young Version (Post 16802188)
I'm inclined to think there are more factors at play here. Rider position would have a MUCH larger effect on your descending speed than aero.

Sure, but with 400 watts, or the power that can only light 5 light-bulbs, every little bit counts. Agree rider position will be significantly more important than anything else.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:16 AM.