Santa Cruz Weights: Aluminum vs. Carbon are totally inconsistent between models?

PB Forum :: All Mountain, Enduro & Cross-Country
Santa Cruz Weights: Aluminum vs. Carbon are totally inconsistent between models?
  • Previous Page
  • Next Page
Author Message
flag shortsguy1
Posted: Sep 26, 2019 at 22:13 Quote
Someone recently posted a reference to a NSMB.com article comparing aluminum and carbon Knolly bikes.
https://nsmb.com/articles/duelling-knolly-wardens-final-verdicts/

The weight difference in question is 0.9 pounds. So I wanted to look up that information for a brand that I am more familiar with... Santa Cruz. And for whatever reason, the difference in weight between aluminum and carbon SC bikes is a lot more than 0.9 pounds, and it is very different depending on the bike. So I wanted to share the numbers and see if anyone knows why SC aluminum bikes seem to be such slugs.

All of my data is right off of SC's website:

First the Nomad (1.21 pounds difference in frame weight due to material choice)
Nomad Aluminum R 33.9 lbs vs Nomad Carbon C R 32.69 for a difference of 1.21
Nomad Aluminum S 33.32 vs Nomad Carbon C S 32.11 for a difference of 1.21

Next the Bronson (2.35 pounds difference in frame weight due to material choice)
Bronson Aluminum R 33.85 lbs vs Bronson Carbon C R 31.5 for a difference of 2.35
Bronson Aluminum S 33.41 vs Bronson Carbon C S 31.07 for a difference of 2.34

And lastly, the Hightower (2.44 pounds difference in frame weight due to material choice)
Hightower Aluminum R 34.48 lbs vs Hightower Carbon C R 32.1 for a difference of 2.38
Hightower Aluminum S 34.02 vs Hightower Carbon C S 31.53 for a difference of 2.49

Any thoughts on how Knolly can get the two materials so close in weight but SC requires almost 2.5 pounds of extra mass on their most recent bike? Also, any thoughts on how the Nomad can be close but not the Bronson or Hightower? The simplest explanation is probably that their numbers are slightly wrong, but I would be curious if anyone had any thoughts. Thanks.
flag gmoss
Posted: Sep 27, 2019 at 4:00 Quote
You should compare frame weight diff. Though builds may be same letter, components could be different. Have you compared them to make sure EVERYTHING is the same otherwise?
flag Will1848
Posted: Sep 27, 2019 at 5:31 Quote
gmoss wrote:
You should compare frame weight diff. Though builds may be same letter, components could be different. Have you compared them to make sure EVERYTHING is the same otherwise?

This is probably a large factor. Another issue is that perhaps the SC aluminum frames are not using the same aluminum alloy that Knolly is? Some manufacturers may figure they can get away with making heavier and cheaper aluminum frames since the customers that want higher end will go aluminum.
flag islandforlife
Posted: Sep 27, 2019 at 12:43 Quote
Tough to make comparisons with Knolly. Knolly is a high end aluminum bike maker first... tooling, hydro-forming and getting custom tubes for their frames. They also use 6066 aluminum while most others use 6061 or other. Knolly also arguabley over builds their bikes. They're made to handle being tossed down rock chutes on the North Shore. Their bikes are on the heavier side and so is their carbon bike. The carbon bike they built is also a high end carbon bike more comparable to Yeti's Turq Carbon or Santa Cruz's Carbon CC... but also built to handle abuse over the long term. Knolly doesn't really care too much about weight, they care more about durability, performance and the tuned characteristics of the frame.

Companies like Santa Cruz focus first on building an awesome high end carbon bike (CC), cut some corners for a good carbon bike (C), and then just weld some generic aluminum tubes together for their aluminum bikes. If a company like Santa Cruz put as much care and thought into their aluminum frames as they do their high end carbon, you'd see less of a difference in the weights... but that comes at a price and is why a Knolly isn't cheap. But, a Knolly aluminum frame rides better than a mid range carbon and just a good as a high end carbon bike (but heavier, but also far more durable). Generally, most companies build their aluminum models to meet a price point and aren't interested in making aluminum bikes comparable to Knolly, which is understandable, it makes good business sense to do that. And doesn't mean their bikes are bad... they are still great bikes. Just not on the same level as a Knolly.

Also why using that NSMB article for a general comparison between generic aluminum and carbon doesn't really work. That article is a comparison of a very high end aluminum frame against the same companies own high end carbon frame.

If it was, say, an aluminum Bronson against a Carbon CC Bronson... I'd suspect you see a much wider performance gap than what was seen between the two Knolly's.
flag shortsguy1
Posted: Sep 27, 2019 at 13:50 Quote
Sorry, I should have been more clear. According to their website, SC specs identical components for a particular build, regardless of frame material. So for an S, it has all the same bits regardless of whether the frame is aluminum or carbon. I really appreciate everyone's input. I wonder if SC is really cutting corners on their aluminum frames and not worried about the weights. That doesn't really fit their public image, but who knows. Thanks again for the suggestions.
flag ALSORAN
FL
Posted: Sep 29, 2019 at 0:31 Quote
Specs are slightly different also on the Hightower after a quick glance cranks and chain are different
flag Mnmarcus
Posted: Sep 9, 2023 at 15:49 Quote
Never believe a manufacturers published weights
  • Previous Page
  • Next Page

 


Copyright © 2000 - 2024. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv65 0.009598
Mobile Version of Website