View Single Post
Old 09-15-05, 07:32 AM
  #6  
the brave
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 11
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by pinkrobe
Easton says [somewhere, I can't recall] that the Scandium is stronger than good old 6000 or 7000-series aluminum, or even the metal matrix aluminums. This means that you can use tubes with thinner walls, which keeps frame weight down with similar frame stiffness levels. I also understand that it can be hard to work with, as it is weakened by excessive heat. Overall, it ain't cheap. Carbon fiber is the ultimate in terms of workability. You can make it into any shape you want, with customizable stiffness characteristics. You mold it, so the manufacturing process can be made very streamlined. It also happens to be fairly light stuff. It also has massive bling factor.

What's better? It depends on your frame design. A complicated design that would involve a lot of bending and working of metal tubing might be better accomplished by CF. Scandium might be better on a design with lots of straight lines. The Scott is not a complicated design. Is the CF needed? Maybe, but you can't expect Scott to sell the same bike two years in a row. There would be no reason to upgrade, and they wouldn't sell enough bikes. IMHO, I say it's marketing.
Thanks for your reply, pinkrobe. Your explanations were of great worth and I fully agree with you when you say that it's marketing ...
the brave is offline