Out of curiosity, does anybody know what type of carbon is use on the SLC/S2?  I know that other companies such as Giant and Pinarello are proud to advertise the carbon used on their frames.  Naturally it is difficult to verify the strength and qualities of the carbon (unless someone compares them). 

Obviously there is a difference in carbon materials and thus cost but if you are spending so much on a frame, and technical details is what determines your purchase decisions (ie. you purchase an SLC/S2/S3 model for aero benefits) then why not provide info on the carbon that is used? 

Paying on design is one thing (designs can be copied) but using good materials is part of what makes a quality product.

Impact strength is important but we have heard of instances of SLC-SL frame damage from crashes/incidents where on comparable bikes they would have survived the damage.  This is subjective but knowing the materials used in the purchase is important in determining the value of the purchase.  How much goes into research and design and how much is used for the materials.  Using poor materials will generally mean certain compromised qualities.

Anyone have any idea to my question?

I would say that you pay for desing + carbon layup know-how + riding quality... which is more difficult to copy.

The type of carbon used to build a frame, imho, is becoming a marketing tool rather than a useful info for the customer to know. I guess the key is how to combine the different types of carbons in other to get a good result that fits your needs.

Maybe a bike manufactured with a high-quality-uber-expensive carbon has got a poor lay-up and results in an awful bike...

 just my humble opinion :)

I agree that design and CF layup is important but all big manufacturers would be on a similar footing.  They all have access to FEA and wind tunnels.  It is just a matter of who is willing to spend.

My curiosity was raised by the issues encountered by BB area cracks appearing and some other damage raised in threads in this forum.  That is not to say that the issues would not have been encountered by other manufacturers.

The use of say a lower grade of carbon/resin or mix/layup could have caused the failures of production bikes.  I am very happy with my SLC and have not encountered any issues with it.  Enjoying the ride (when I have the time to ride).

I chose the SLC over the SLC-SL purely because it was "meatier" (my 48cm weighs in at 1170g) and moreso because of the lifetime warranty offered.  I naturally want Cervelo to be around for a very long time - no point having lifetime warranty if the company goes bust.

I am a numbers man and like the details.  I have to say that the Pinarello Dogma 60.1 sure caught my eye and got me questioning about the make-up of my own frame.  Just cannot find details on it.

leegil:

I am a numbers man and like the details.  I have to say that the Pinarello Dogma 60.1 sure caught my eye and got me questioning about the make-up of my own frame.  Just cannot find details on it.

 I agree. A certain amount of transparency would be nice.

knowing the type of carbon used, is not going to help you decide if it is a good frame, if you think so you are wrong.  You can use the best carbon but if you use a poor resin, poor compression, poor layup, it does not matter.  It is about what you are doing with the material.  Cervelo is using many different materials throughout the frame, to give it properties where it is needed.  You can have a so called 100% high modulus frame as some companies tout(marketing hype by the way) but then they are simply assuming that the frames needs the same material everywhere, not true.  So if you want cervelo to supply you with a name of materials it would have to be a list, not just one name.  Trying to decide if the frame would break because of a different carbon, and thinking another frame would not, unless you throw both frames at the same curb you would not know, and it would not be the type of carbon that would make the difference it would be layup, resin, weight, etc.  to try to use it as a value thing, how much is research, how much is material.  It is all research and very little cost in material.  The difference in cost between materials is very minimal, it is all labor, tooling, r&d. 

Even if you had the name of every material used in every road bike made, what would you do with it, I doubt if most anyone on this forum can tell me how it will react/ ride like/ strength, etc. in an actuall bike frame

Want to know if the bike is a good value, TAKE IT FOR A RIDE

Want a name for the material, I will name it for you, 100% superdooperfancylishis carbon using extra white elmers glue, with whoopy cushins for mold bladders.

I don't know anything about carbon fiber strength, layup or resin curing processes beyond the basics, but I think like sergio said, it has become a marketing tool with different manufacturers. Obviously, no reputable bike company would produce a product that would not stand the test of time, or their warranty. I am sure there is little to no difference between the carbon fiber used by the top manufacturers. There is probably more difference in the lay-up, amount of resin and curing processes used. Cervelo probably just doesn't bother getting involved in useless marketing ploys that sound good in print, but don't mean diddly-$hit in the real world.

Though they don't get into specifics, which is what you want, here is what they do say about their "Smartwall for Carbon" (though you probably already read this);

"Patent-pending technology from our carbon materials and manufacturing group, Smartwall elaborates on the Squoval tubeshape. With the sides far away from the center plane more important, we concentrate more material there to increase the benefit.

Strips of High and Ultra-high modulus carbon stiffen the sides of the main tubes to resist lateral bending. These strips are feathered in to properly transfer the loads from the joints into these tubes.

Finally, we add Kevlar to the headtube/downtube area for industry-leading impact strength."

As far as being worried about damage to fragile frame, that goes with the territory in buying an expensive, good quality bike. If you can't handle it, don't buy it. I get scared every time my 3 year old boy flings something around my SLC-SL, but what are you going to do? If I had a really expensive sports car like a Ferrari, I would be worried about it too. A friend of mine who passed away recently had one, and he would plan out trips according to weather, road construction and traffic. Wiped it down with a babies diaper and had a seperate locked garage for it. Seemed like a waste of time, money and effort to me, but to each their own. I guess chicks did dig it.

Or what sam said. Always good to hear from sam, the one who actually knows what he is talking about first hand.

sam:

knowing the type of carbon used, is not going to help you decide if it is a good frame, if you think so you are wrong.  You can use the best carbon but if you use a poor resin, poor compression, poor layup, it does not matter.  It is about what you are doing with the material.  Cervelo is using many different materials throughout the frame, to give it properties where it is needed.  You can have a so called 100% high modulus frame as some companies tout(marketing hype by the way) but then they are simply assuming that the frames needs the same material everywhere, not true.  So if you want cervelo to supply you with a name of materials it would have to be a list, not just one name.  Trying to decide if the frame would break because of a different carbon, and thinking another frame would not, unless you throw both frames at the same curb you would not know, and it would not be the type of carbon that would make the difference it would be layup, resin, weight, etc.  to try to use it as a value thing, how much is research, how much is material.  It is all research and very little cost in material.  The difference in cost between materials is very minimal, it is all labor, tooling, r&d. 

People make purchasing decisions on many different factors aside from just ride quality alone. Some see value in a product from different angles. Whether it be the ratio of engineers on an R&D team that produced the bike to the graphic design on a bicycle frame and even the frameset aesthetics. This is just another faucet of value some would like to know to give them that extra purchasing power when spending $2K and above.  There is good insight in your response regarding how important this information truly is, but you haven't taken into account the complexity of the human mind.

devisible:

People make purchasing decisions on many different factors aside from just ride quality alone. Some see value in a product from different angles. Whether it be the ratio of engineers on an R&D team that produced the bike to the graphic design on a bicycle frame and even the frameset aesthetics. This is just another faucet of value some would like to know to give them that extra purchasing power when spending $2K and above.  There is good insight in your response regarding how important this information truly is, but you haven't taken into account the complexity of the human mind.

Make sure you call sam up first and let him know when you are coming in to buy a bike then, just so you can give him the courtesy of taking the day off first. Let me guess, you bring a clip board with you when you buy a car, right? Another guess, you are a school teacher? All sam meant (not that I speak for sam) was that if you are that concerned about information that is next to impossible to get or comprehend, figure it out for yourself because you are just wasting everyone's time. You are not qualified to discern the information anyways, for if you were, you would be the one from Cervelo answering the question. I think he took into account perfectly the complexity of the human mind.

He never said he was bigger than Jesus, or better than Jesus, he was just saying.

And by the way, it is people like you who stop people like sam from answering questions on this forum. No offense, but that pisses me off because I, as well as many, many other people here would much rather hear his professional opinion over yours.

Calfee Designs has a series of "White Papers" that describe design and manufacturing criteria for carbon frames, descriptions of materials, etc. Here is a link to one of the articles: http://www.calfeedesign.com/whitepaper1.htm 

It is unlikely that Cervelo will reveal whether the carbon fiber is made in Japan, Taiwan, Europe, etc.or the exact model numbers of the various materials they use. Suffice it to say that the testing that Cervelo does, both internally and with independent test houses, verifies that they meet or exceed all published standards for frame integrity. Would knowing that Tokay Industries ultra high modulus carbon fiber was used in conjunction with Nippon Graphite Fiber Corporation  high modulus carbon fiber  material put you over the top in making a purchasing decision?

 I worked in the hi-tech industry for many years; we would go out of our way to provide disinformation to keep our competitors from knowing what materials we used in our products, or who our suppliers were. Trade secrets are often worth more than patents. Cervelo needs to keep their competitive edge; divulging trade secrets to their customers (and competitiors) is not a smart business practice.

Raymond - interesting bit about "mis-information".  During prototyping/design misinformation is obviously used by some companies but when a consumer buys something based on the actual relaeased marketing materials, and if that is deliberately misleading, then that company would contravene trade practices laws.  Good luck to them if something negative arises - the lawyers in the US sue for everything :-)

If a company wants to know what another bike manufacturer is doing, they simply buy their competitor's product and disect it.  Throw it under a microscope and and look at various cross section properties or throw it on a jig to measure its specs and tolerances.  Half the world is copying each other.  As noted earlier, there are only a few large CF manufacturers.

I remember once seeing Giant providing basic deisgn info on their website of their lay-up.  I thought that was interesting.  As a consumer it was good to know the construction.  I ended buying the Giant MTB over a comparable brand purely because it could differentiate what it did and how it did it (transparency).  There was not that much difference between the two hardtails. 

The first time I saw the SLC I loved it (3yrs ago).  I couldn't test ride as no one stocked it locally so I had to research specs carefully to ensure the fit.  I wanted a roadie that was like a TT bike but still handle like a roadie.  It fitted the bill so I ordered one that was cheaper than the LBS (had a mate collect it interstate and send it to me).  Dimensional specs are critical when ordering unseen and the expansion of the internet means more of us are ordering over the www. 

Riding a bike is very subjective.  One day you may feel good on it the next terrible.  Also, the parts on a bike significantly impacts on its performance.  Riding the bike will not tell you how durable it may be.  For instance, wasn't the R2.5 a sweet bike but it got recalled?

The points noted in the threads are all valid but as a consumer I prefer more info.  I prefer to make my own decisions.  I refer to use my head rather than my heart eg. do you notice a 45 sec aero saving over 40km ride or do you confer with figures?  We know TT bikes and aero shapes are faster (the science) but we can also be sold by marketing (the heart).  The SLC purchase was a bit of both.

When I tigtened the brake (to torque spec) onto the frame the serrated washer dug into the paint and carbon quite a lot.  When I did the same onto the Funda fork the serrated washer did not even penetrate the carbon (barely left a mark on it).  Now this is clearly telling me that the carbon/resin mix was superior on the fork.  How good is it on the frame?  Lucky the frame has lifetime warranty.

Good points leegil (sort of went off there, didn't I). I think with Carbon frames, you have to use some common sense more than trying to pretend your an engineer (unless you are, I guess). If a bike frame weighs less than 900 grams, there is a pretty good chance it is not going to stand up to a lot of abuse. As far as the company making the frame, you could tell more by researching the company than the frame. I don't think that it is a secret that Cervelo uses their engineering prowess to design and structure all of their bikes to be the best in their class (like Toyota and Honda). A company like Scott (and many others) makes their flag ship frame to be the lightest in their class, the rest are just result of trickle down effect (like most car companies). A company like Trek makes their frames to be marketed best in their class and will cut a corner if it saves them $5 (like GM and Chrysler) a frame ($5 times 1 million frames adds up). Obviously there is a little more to it than that, but my point being is, that you can pretty much guarantee that when comparing apples to apples, you are more likely to find the best bike frame in every aspect (carbon fiber used, layout, etc.) when purchasing a Cervelo (well I guess the paint scheme may be up for debate there apparently).

I think if you asked Cervelo the question (I just realized you were the one who first posted the thread) you will more likely get the answers you desire. Or at least enough information to do your own research and conclusions.

I find this post interesting and frustrating at the same time.  I understand that people may want to hear something, and may want something, but it does not mean they are better off for getting it.  If you want info on a bike frame, how many manufactures do you know that share as much of there info as cervelo does, none really that I know of, if you search the website you can find all sorts of info on how and why they do alot of stuff.  And they are sharing real info, but some people seem to want to know info on carbon fiber, well once again almost no one is going to be able to know what it means.  And i dont care who the manufacture is, pinerallo, cervelo, trek, etc.  when they supply carbon info it is just marketing, what do those numbers really mean to frame design.  Great example, everyone tends to think Ti is a great frame material that will last forever, this thinking is due to the litmis test, where they take a flat strip of metal and bend it back and forth to see how long it take to break, Ti can go through this test forever and not fail, so everyone says my Ti frame will not break.  However when you Build ti into a frame and test it using bike related stress, it actualls fails alot.  Most anyone who really knows material knows that if Ti tubing is not preped and purged proplerly it will fail at the weld/HAZ, but this is not where Ti usually fails in a bike frame,it usually fails mid tube, in a spiral fracture, where very little stress is even at, so why is it that the builder tell you it will not fail in a litmis test, yet in real world it tends to fail in an area that sees little stress, it is called marketing.  Can anyone here tell me what the properties of Toryaca 60hm1k is in a bicycle frame, it can withstand 60tons of force per sqcm, that is nice what does that mean in a bicycle frame, what about the difference between m30 and m40, m30 is stiff brittle, m40 is more elastic and resiliant.  All these numbers and info are nice, they come from a flat sheet of carbon, and mean little when you roll them up into a tube, and apply bicyle forces.  someone saying they use some particular carbon in a frame is nice, but is the properties of that carbon right for every part of the bike. 

Cervelo supplies us with more techincal info then most frame makers when it is real info, and does not bother with the marketing hype of labeling its carbon.  Maybe they should label their carbon, but not give you all the other real info, the info that matters by the way, like most of the other companies do. 

I do understand that marketing works, and maybe they should do more of it at the expense of the consumer, if it makes the consumer feel better.  I say look at reputation, reviews, take on for a ride, consumer demand, the real technical info they do supply etc.  Im not saying there is anything wrong with marketing based on carbon, if you like to hear it great, but it really does not help the consumer out.

Not to mention many of the things I hear used as examples on this thread have little to do with what type of carbon is used.  How does your  brake washer digging into the paint/carbon decide that one is a better carbon, maybe having a little elasticy in that area means that you will not have a fracture due to clamping forces of the brake, and the flexing of the stays around it.  Who knows I dont, but I do know that it is in no way a way to decide the level of carbon. 

By the way I find way more problems with the resins, then I see with carbon itself when I deal with bad carbon frames