greatwhite

Perfect - was just crapped on by my gang and tols the 8 is too L8 !

We'll be going there next saturday morning to do the route too - we were planning to start 7h30 for 8h00. Look for the tall guy with good kit (XT) on a crappy avalache frame that is too small for him.

Agreed on the comment about denting ali vs snapping carbon - was going to say that in my original post, but figured I'd said enough already. As for fatigue life, I'm a big lad and I work on 3 years for a frame - if it hasn't broken by then, I'm very pleased - all failures happen in the BB area: In the case of my early steel frames, it would appear crystaline break down of the manganese molybdenem steel alloy (Reynolds tubes) due to over temp during brazing might have been contributory in some cases, but the failures we typical cyclic fatigue failures My titanium pinarello failed at the bottom of the front deraileur hanger, again typical high cycle fatigue. I suspect the crack propogated from a tiny weld notch but could never find it. Aluminium frames will always fail eventually given aluminiums lack of a cyclic fatigue limit - my experience bears this out. I've never broken a carbon bike - I'm on my 1st one at the moment, but its a race only bike, so should last a while. Getting to the point - "The fatigue life of a properly designed steel or aluminium bike exceeds your or my lifetime" - yes, if you want it to weigh a lot more. A modern race frame is basically a sacraficial component. There are no meaningful safety factors to cover fatigue etc. The lighter and more expensive it gets, the more this is the case. The solution was simple - find a manufacturer that makes all their frames to the same geomtry, get their race frame and get their tank frame. In my case I have a CR1 limited for racing and an old speedster s4 (heavy 1.6kg ali) to train on. And, I believe, appropriate application of carbon and ali

Has anyone ever sat back and had a look at how much you get charged for a carbon part, when there is an aluminium part that weights the same, works the same and costs a fraction of the price? Here are a few examples: Frame: Karbona (and many other) carbon frames at 1.2kg (R6000?) vs Scott speedster alumium frame at 1.2kg (whole speedster S60 bike for R6000) Wheels: Zipp 303 clincher at 1556g (and that was the lowest weight I found) (R12k?) vs Ritchey WCS DS at 1550g (R4000) While carbon made properly (like a scott or cervelo frame) really is lighter than aluminium and/or when properly applied (like a zip 303 tubular wheelset) definately has its place, too many parts these days are carbon for the sake of marketing to attract a higher price without offering material benefit to the buyer. Think about it before spend you hard earned Xmas bonus on a carbon 'wannabe' bits

Good value for money, but the frames are too short across the top tube. I have one and so does my mate, we both have the same problem in that regard. The zaskar is longer and has it about right.

Agreed, the mind does play a big role and it also feels great especially out of the saddle when you are on a stiff light bike.

They are the lightest production frames' date=' but are quite flexy.[/quote'] I think the scott addict at 790 gram with intergrated seat tube is lighter - I suspect quite a bit stiffer too. The Litespeed weighs 763g..ex seatpost. 763g for a small frame (765g per litespeed site) or 840g for a ML size frame which is dimensionally about the same as 790g M size addict. That said, in the long haul I'd trust the titanium frame more than the carbon frame, even though the Ti frame will be seriously whippy.

They are the lightest production frames' date=' but are quite flexy.[/quote'] I think the scott addict at 790 gram with intergrated seat tube is lighter - I suspect quite a bit stiffer too.