Please activate JavaScript!
Please install Adobe Flash Player, click here for download

TOUR QTR 4-2011

The most important test of the year: TOUR compares 26 carbon frames from the best companies in three sizes each

All frames which were supplied, 78 in all, went through the complete TOUR test regimen in the laboratory. The following data was determined: the weight, lateral stiffness and comfort of the fork, head tube deflection as an indicator for ride stabil- ity, the stiffness of the bottom bracket shell to mea- sure power transmission, shock absorption of the frame to measure the comfort level at the saddle and the paint’s impact resistance. The instruction manual and provisions of the guarantee also played a role in the evaluation process. More information (in German) and photos of TOUR’s test procedure can be found at www.tour-magazin.de, type in the webcode 1589 at the top right. All grades refer to a frames size of either 57 cm - 22.4” or the size which came closest to that. In or- der to make an exact weight comparison between framesets in different sizes and/or different forms possible, TOUR works with corrected weights. Weight is added to frames which are smaller than the standard 57 cm size, while weight is deducted from larger frames. Sloping frames receive added weight to make up for the longer seatpost, which becomes necessary to compensate. Frameworks with integrated seatposts are weighed with their respective saddle-clamping mechanisms, then the weight of a Ritchey WCS carbon (216 gram - 0.48 lbs) is subtracted. All frames are weighed ready to be assembled, i.e. including the saddle clamp, front derailleur socket (if necessary as a separate clamp) and the shifting cable guide mounted under the bottom bracket shell. Forks are weighed including the ahead top cap and screw, with weight being mathematically corrected to achieve a uniform fork shaft length of 225 mm - 8.9”. Don’t forget: the final grade can’t simply be applied to the largest and smallest frame size. This is be- cause, in addition to weight, other important evalu- ation parameters like head tube rigidity, stiffness at the bottom bracket and a frame’s comfort depend on the respective frame size. That’s why we listed the stiffness of every frame’s head tube and bottom bracket shell on pages 64 and 65: these are impor- tant criteria to determine the riding characteristics of the frames. In addition, the STR factor (which indicates seating position) for each frame size is noted in the individual test boxes. Storck 1.4 TREK 2.0 51 1.34 57 1.43 61 1.55 50 1.32 56 1.39 62 1.48 manufacturer model Web price frameset fork headset equipment/extras seatpost diameter bottom bracket type geometry frame sizes (company’s data)1) seat tube-/head tube angle seat-/top-/head tube length wheelbase/trail stack/reach/STR seating position by frame size2) frame size STR measured data weight frame/fork/headset3) standardized weight frameset4) steering rigidity lateral fork stiffness bottom bracket shell rigidity frame comfort (shock absorption) fork comfort (shock absorption) STW-value5) evaluation weight frameset 25% ride stability 15% lateral fork stiffness 15% power transmission 10% frame comfort 10% fork comfort 10% paint’s impact resistance 5% finish 5% instruction manual 2.5%6) guarantee 2.5%7) final grade 100% HoW tOUR tests footnotes 1) The frame size upon which the final grade is based is marked in bold. 2) You’ll find the three frame sizes we tested marked in bold in the line “seating position by frame size.” The number behind the frame size is the stack- to-reach = STR factor. It is an indicator of the seating position on the frame. If the STR is under 1.45, the frame has a long top tube for its size and makes the rider sit in a stretched out, aerodynamic position (racing style). If the STR is above 1.55, the frame has a short top tube for its size and offers a rather upright seating position (comfort- able). STR values between 1.45 and 1.55 denote a balanced seating position (sporty). 3) Weighed by TOUR: 216 g - 0.48 lbs have been sub- tracted from frames with integrated seatposts. 4) Weight corrected for a standard frame size of 57 cm - 22.4” and fork shaft length 225 mm - 8.9”. 5) STW-value: relationship of stiffness to weight, standardized for a frame size of 57 cm - 22.4”. 6) Instruction manual (IM): IMs with racing bike spe- cific details, illustrations and safety instructions are graded as very good = 1.0. A generic IM gets a grade of 3.0, whereas a missing IM is graded as failing = 5.0. Grades explained at top left of page. 7) Guarantee: a frame and fork guarantee of five years or better merits a good = 2.0. A three to five year guarantee = 3.0, less than three years is a 4.0. If the guarantee excludes the fork or racing use, the grade drops by one level. If the guarantee offers a crash replacement, the grade improves by one level. Grades: 1 = Very good, 2 = Good, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Sufficient, 5 = FailING German PRICES, the price in your country may vary Madone 6 SSL www.trekbikes.com € 3339 / $ 4808 / £ 2928 Bontrager XXX Cane Creek, top 1-1/8”, bottom 1.5” seatpost, stem integrated BB90 50, 52, 54, 56, 58, 60, 62 cm 73.5°/74° 590/560/141 mm 980/54 mm 549/395 mm/1.39 835/394/56 g 1324 g - 2.92 lbs 88 Nm/degree 43 N/mm 56 N/mm 182 N/mm 83 N/mm 101 Nm/degree•kg 1.7 2.0 2.7 1.7 1.3 3.3 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 The Madone has everything that a great frame needs: good technical specs, well-thought-out details like the cleverly made seatmast, a com- puter sensor integrated into one of the chainstays, internal cables and an elegant attachment point under the bottom bracket shell for the battery of the Di2 electric shifting system. Not to mention the nimbus that comes with winning the Tour de France nine times since 1999. Fascenario 0.7 www.storck-bicycle.com € 4723 / $ 6800 / £ 4140 Stiletto Light UMS Acros Ceramic, 1-1/8” aero-hood for fork, seatpost 31.6 mm BSA 47, 51, 55, 57, 59, 63 cm 73°/73° 550/575/161 mm 990/69 mm 577/403 mm/1.43 908/295/43 g 1263 g - 2.78 lbs 104 Nm/degree 54 N/mm 69 N/mm 181 N/mm 82 N/mm 113 Nm/degree•kg 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.3 3.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 How good is the Fascenario 0.7? One indication is the fact that its first test victory dates back to 2007. But noth- ing is so good that it can’t be im- proved upon: the new seatpost, available in two stiffnesses for dif- ferent rider weights, brings a clear gain in comfort. In addition, the ul- tralight Stiletto fork has become both more laterally rigid and more comfortable. The lightest and most expensive frameset in the test. T01_11_EN_085_Rahmtest_Einzel.indd 85 25.08.2011 10:08:15 Uhr