Hida Yanra

yeah, that was the impression I got from his blog and company website.

ridethecliche

Heh, nice!

Oh, on the note of tube shapes.

The CAAD9 is mostly just round tubes of varying diameter, but the joints are more 'fortified' with flatter and slightly triangular sections.

The Skeletor's top tube is pyramidal/flat till around the midway point from the head tube. Mickey said that this helps stiffen it up and make it a little more lively by transmitting the vibrations a little better and less harshly.

This stuff is so cool. I.e. how small variations in tube shapes totally changes the entire feel of a ride.

mollusk

I'll put better pictures up when I have time.

grolby

Looking great, mollusk! I think I've got my bike plans all settled for 2010, but I'm big fans of the Spooky crew - nice guys, good stuff, the real deal. If anything happens to my E5 or if I just want a better-fitting frame, the Skeletor is at the top of my list.

rruff

This is marketing rather than reality...

Hida Yanra

okay, please do!
it looks good,

Fat Boy

Really? How many bike frames have you built?

rruff

How many engineers are involved in Spooky's design? Is he willing to show his analysis and testing that shows a certain tube shape has a particular effect on the "ride"? Or did he just make this stuff up?

grolby

Yes, a whole team of engineers is required to design a good bike frame.

As for tube shape affecting the ride: D^4, dude. Tube shape definitely has an effect. As to what specific shapes in certain parts of the frame will do, I don't know, but non-round tubes definitely have different amounts of stiffness in different directions. This is not exactly rocket science, and frame builders have been using non-round tubes to fine-tune riding characteristics for at least two decades.

rruff

Actually I did have a stint with Intense in the early days (about 17 years ago), and I've been an engineer for 27 years ("rocket science" actually). FS MTBs obviously do not derive any significant ride characteristics from tube shaping. But in road frames there is very little effect as well... because there is very little compliance in a frame. The saddle, seatpost (especially if it's long), fork, stem, bars, and tires are far greater sources of vertical compliance.

Round tubes weren't used for 100 years because there was no way to produce other shapes. A round tube is the optimal way to achieve the highest bending and torsional stiffness with the least amount of weight. Beneficial shaping occurs when a tube is manipulated to provide a better junction with another tube... but this isn't done to improve the "ride" but rather to increase the weld surface and hopefully the strength.

The Skeletor's tubes are all pretty round and straight, so I can't see what "shaping effect" could even be claimed.

The scary part about the Skeletor is that they are claiming 1000g weight using ordinary 6061 tubing. For decades companies with large budgets and several engineers (like Cannondale) have tried to develop the lightest aluminum frames possible, and theirs weigh ~1250g or more. I had a Klein awhile back that weighed 1500g and it was very durable. A 1000g aluminum frame will have a springy ride, but it will not last long. They are probably using straight gauge tubing also, so the weld areas will be a certain weak point. I didn't see anything on Spooky's site about a warranty.

EDIT: Just found the warranty info in the terms and policies section:

"Warranty Disclaimer
This site and the materials and products on this site are provided "as is" and without warranties of any kind, whether express or implied."

https://www.spookybikes.com/terms.asp

grolby

I actually agree that there's not a lot of difference to be made in frame compliance. The combination of tires, other parts and fit are a lot more important to comfort. I was just saying that it makes no sense to say that tube shaping will have NO effect. What or how much effect, I honestly can't say. This is really part of why I find the conventional wisdom about the harsh ride of aluminum to be so tiresome; no bike frame has a whole lot of "vertical compliance." If you want to make a ride noticeably softer with the same components, rider, etc, the most effective way to do that is to stretch the chainstays out. That's not going to please riders of road bikes.

As for the strength of the frames, I haven't heard of one breaking yet, and the Spooky/NCC/Kenda guys have been thrashing them around pretty good. It's probably relevant that Spookys are a bit on the small side, and they're probably measuring the weight from the 54, or even the 52. It's worth keeping an ear to the ground; personally, the idea of a 1,000g aluminum frame doesn't especially worry me, but I'm <125 lbs soaking wet. So I can ride some light stuff without much fear. That makes the Skeletor a pretty appealing bike, though I am very fond of my E5, which is one of the great mass-produced Al frames. If it were just a bit shorter, it would be perfect. That's the other appeal of Spooky. Oh well.

rruff

I got Javelin Amarone for my wife which is made from Dedacciai U2 tubing and weighs ~1100g in 54cm. She weighs 120 lbs and doesn't ride aggressively or often, so I'm not worried about it lasting for her. The E5 is a good frame but it is also ~1250g, and I know of a couple of these that have broken under normal sized riders (after a few years of use though). I still think that is about the practical limit for aluminum... unless you are light. Before carbon became so cheap and common, there were a lot of companies making light aluminum frames with scandium alloy, but they didn't prove to be reliable. Don't know if the material is to blame or manufacturers were just pushing it too far. 6061 is probably as good as anything.

Fat Boy

OK, that's a pretty good resume. You're not the normal B.S.er that shows up say X, Y or Z with nothing to back it up.

Round does give the best average bending and torsional numbers, but square, for instance, is better in bending and worse in torsion than round tubing. It shouldn't be a big surprise if someone juggles this, that and the other to get the characteristics they're looking for. You really don't need FEA to do it, mortar fire works as well, it's just less efficient.

Is the frame pretty much a side variable? Maybe so, but, I just don't see it. I've been on bikes that feel like the sting from an aluminum baseball bat when you hit a big bump. Now, I could be wrong, but I think that frame construction is important enough to warrant a second look.

I have to agree with your take on 6061. It's certainly common in the world of aluminum. Easton makes a butted 6000 series tubeset, so I don't think it's necessarily fair to assume it's straight gauge. Regardless, it's nothing special as an alloy, and could certainly run into issues, although it seems as if no one has at this point.

If you take the Spooky riders at their word, they have a lot of good things to say about the bikes. I personally have nothing against a weld that hasn't been filed down. It's stonger than one that has been, and the welds I've seen look very nice and even.

Maybe Spooky is the present day Vitus, I don't know, but they seem to be turning out some pretty nice stuff and good prices. I think they're worth taking a second look at.

ridethecliche

I wouldn't call the skeletor flexy.

Even the CAAD9 says that you have to replace it every couple of season because of their being built to be light race frames, not ones that are long lasting.

Hocam

I miss flexy.

My flexy steel bike soaks up bumps like nobodies business and even tends to give slightly higher peak wattages in full on sprints. You can see the front hub bob up and down over rough pavement like it's got a shock on there, just awesomeness. The CAAD9 geometry corners much better, weighs a good 2-3 lbs less and is more disposable so I race that.

Some day I want a flexy steel cross bike, and a flexy steel race bike.

Flexy is stiff, war is peace, love is hate.

TheStott

I partly agree with this, but a sub-1000g frame, reportedly stiff, with good geometry? You could easily build a 15 or 16 pound machine. Sure has me thinking...I'd love to ride one, but the closest shop is a few hours north of me. I agree, that I'm not sold on the hipster-esque graphics, but I'm ok with rockin' a bare bike. The anodized red would look great with my team kit.

Hida Yanra

email mickey, I bet he'll do the graphics in colors to match what you are looking for... he may also be flexible on what the graphics look like - I've seen several different schemes in photos.

rruff

And if you want a member that is only stiff in one direction then an I-beam is very efficient. Where lateral frame stiffness is concerned (the direction where you want the frame to be stiff) the main triangle needs to be torsionally stiff... the downtube in particular. Torsion is more important than bending and so round (or very close to it) works the best. Shaping is beneficially done to improve the junction with other tubes.

And in the vertical direction the diamond shape is quite stiff... and there isn't a lot you can do to change that unless you don't mind compromising strength, weight and lateral stiffness. That is what I recall from the analysis I've done anyway.

Wooden bats sting more... even though they are a well damped composite. Frankly I think the comfort difference between normal frames is pretty subtle. But... so many people claim to be able to feel a difference even though there is only a very tiny motion on any of them. As an example, pump up the tires on the the most comfortable frame you can find, and on a concrete floor push down as hard as you can on the seat tube-top tube junction. It will feel really solid... even though the tire is compressing a fair amount. There is obviously not much going on in the frame. Repeat by pushing down on the saddle and bars... there you will feel a lot more flex.

So if there is a difference it would have to come from a vibration response. Sadly, I've never heard anyone who is an expert in this weigh in on the topic.

Haven't looked, but I'm 99.99% sure that Easton isn't selling 6000 series tubesets that will build a 1000g road frame. So maybe Spooky is getting custom butted tubing made, but that seems unlikely for a small company. It also is something that would be a clear selling feature that they would want to advertise if it was true.

The welds are fine with me too. I'll be very happy if they prove to be durable, but for the reasons I mentioned, and also the lack of a warranty, I'm pretty skeptical at this point.

ridethecliche

From the convo I had with Mickey 2 months ago, he said that the bikes come with a warranty for defective frames. There's also a reduced price for a 'crash replacement' option.

I'm not sure what the terms are for the former, and what the price is for the latter.

mollusk

Today I rode my Skeletor for a couple of hours on various road surfaces. It is much stiffer than my Curtlo (True Temper/semi-sloping toptube). And it ain't the wheels or tires because I took the wheelset (FSA RD-400) off of the Curtlo. Both bikes have Ritchey aluminum bars and SLR saddles, too.

The Skeletor built up with Dura Ace is way lighter than my old 2002 Lemond Zurich built up with 9-speed Ultegra that I had been racing. The ultra-short headtube on the Lemond allowed me to set it up very aggressively and I haven't been able to quite match that on the Skeletor even with a -17 degree stem and bars with 144 mm of drop. It is close, though.

Riding with some gusty winds (gusts up to the low 20 mph range) was interesting. In crosswinds the oversized tubes caught a lot more wind than I was used to. I'll get used to it.

ridethecliche

Subjectively, what can you say about the feel of the bike?

(Something more than stiffer and vertically compliant laterally stiff haha)

Hida Yanra

400 for crash replacement
(same as a cdale)

mollusk

Light, stiff, straight (i.e. frame is aligned properly), a little "twitchy" but in a good way (quick handling). The whole bike would "jump" a little bit on really rough pavement so I might want to lower the tire pressure slightly if that will become an issue either on a ride or race. This is making me think that I will want to go tubular for race wheels for this bike so that I can lower tire pressure for rough or wet pavement races without having to worry about pinch flats.

I did notice that my knees would very lightly brush the toptube when just spinning along riding on the hoods. I'm so used to riding steel bikes with their smaller diameter tubes that I never knew that I rode a little knock-kneed.

I haven't done any sprinting on it as of yet except for a couple of brief "jumps". Sprinting really isn't my strength. I'm more of a one minute to 5 minute power guy. What I did feel felt very solid. I didn't hear/feel any brake rub or magnet/sensor "clicking". That may be due more to the fork than the frame for the front wheel where I have had issues in the past with other bikes. I bought the bike with the Edge Composites 2.0 fork and not the lighter 1.0 fork.

Fat Boy

Your downtube philosophy is not shared by all. Notably, Cervelo and Giant shape their downtubes in an airfoil and square, respectively. Many others use aero downtubes, but I think we'll both agree that these are for other reasons than stiffness (aerodynamics and marketing). It doesn't necessarily make a bad (or good) bike. So a logical conclusion is that torsional stiffness of the downtube is not the holy grail of frame design.

Wooden bats sting more? More damping and a lower natural freq., but you say more sting? Intuitively, this doesn't hold water. Any sources for this statement?

I agree that bike frame deflection is small. I've said many times that I've never really felt a difference is frame or crank stiffness. It might exist, but its below my noise floor.

The difference is absolutely vibration response. We had a thread on this about a week ago. I listed a paper from an MIT test that was interesting. Not that it was conclusive, but it was certainly interesting.


And they never said they were using Easton. I just know that Easton sells a 6000 series tubeset, so I mentioned it.

I don't know if Spooky is turning out good bikes or not. Chances are pretty good I'll never own one. I'm certainly not in a place to defend what they do. Having said that, I also tend to give people the benefit of the doubt. I haven't heard a single bad report on their stuff from anyone that has actually ridden one of their bikes, so that says something.

mickey@spooky

We use seamless Candadian mined and draw Alcoa 6061 tubing that is drawn, butted, swaged and squished to our specifications, in Portland Oregon at Sapa, and in a "top secret" location on the Connecticut coast.

Our frames are light because they are compact and aggressively butted. Wall thickness is very thick in the flex zones. I have the tube specs here for a Caad9(I actually own the rights to the CAAD 2-8 tubesets, as well as all Cannondale tubes before 2007). Eric Herting, Eastons tubing designer from 1992 until they effectively left the bike bussiness in 2007 is a business acquaintance of mine. His brother Chris, of 3D racing built our very first frames back in 1994, and his former partner at yeti, Frank The Welder is basically my kooky uncle, and the person I learned just about everything I know about frame building, fixturing and design from back in 1997 when I started spending summers working in our factory that was in Danbury, Ct at the time.

We KNOW aluminum as well as any company in the world. Maybe better. People involved in the design of our frames, and most definitely those who have influenced it most and some of the fabricators have a longer history of working with aggressively butted aluminum tubing (in both 7005 and 6061) than anyone else in the world. They all prefer, hands down, 6061. 7005 on paper has benefits, but in the real world of mid to high volume manufacturing it has none. It's still my go-to material for custom frames due to easier post-weld aging.
If the Caad9 was built with the same slope as a Skeletor, it would be about the same weight. It'd be too damn stiff though. Modern
"ultrastiff" bikes are ultra ****ty, as far as I am concerned. We designed these frames to ride like Ritchey Logic tubed Tange Steel bikes from the mid 90's. Those are about the best riding tubesets ever as far as I am concerned, and I constantly scour Japan for more for my personal bikes. Weight was not even a design parameter with these bikes. Ride quality, manufacturability and durability were paramount.

Ignore that ****ty website. It's some stupid e-commerce shell that a previous bussiness partner wanted, and I should be launching a fresh website in a week or so.

Our warranty policy is thus:
If your frame breaks, and it's our fault, you will have a new frame, free, in 3 days.
If you break your frame, you'll have a new frame for $400+ shipping of your choice.

The only tubes we do significant forming on are the Seatstays (for clearance and some vertical stiffness), and the Toptube, which is domed at the headtube end for increased cross section area, ovalized at the seatube for better weld area and a little flex, and a Squish back from the headtube dome for a scooch more lateral stiffness and a "flex zone" for stress relief.

Design bicycle tubes isn't rocket science dude... Neither is building good bikes.
This is America. We've been building cool **** since cool **** was invented.

As far as an "engineering staff" it's a moot point. Unless an Engineer is over the age of 35 in this country, they know about as much about design and manufacturing as your average 14 year old on the Internet. There are some rare exceptions. 3 of them work for me. For free. Because we make the stuff they want to ride.

So get off the internet, and go ride bikes. That's what I'm doing. Right now.