It’s a cranked-out/jack’d-off war between the one-coque(s) {ooh-KnOw-coques, mano-a-mano-sur-su-coque / monocoque as in uno-coque(s) / mondo-coque / u’r-a-cock } carbon frames and the TuBE bUtT-issue of uP-U’r-bUtT construction methodologies.  I know it’s mondo-compliKådo so you’ll just have to take my word for it.  Essentially, there’s a battle waging out there: the coque vs. your butt (monocoque vs. tube to tube {butted} construction). {That’s cocque; pronounced cock.}

Findings from NAHBS:
Some independent builders, in their struggle to stay competitive in the race-bike category and maybe even lead the advance in technology, are  turning their attention to carbon frame construction techniques.  Essentially, with the current technology, it’s fait-accompli; the technology is widely available and well understood now.  The builders are bringing their special talents to bear and the frames are strikingly beautiful.

It appears that monocoque techniques can create lighter frames but stiffer and unforgiving when needed and entirely too fragile.  The conversation sounds a lot like the arguments you heard in the late 70s when aluminum dominated the crank’d over conversations about dampening and groovy rides.  Sarto had a fully built carbon tube-to-tube that weighed in under 10lbs and a frame without hardware on the headtube and bb that weighed 675 grams (~1.5lbs).  Guru uses a combo method; monocoque pieces that act like lugs.

Each methodology has its proponents and detractors.  Tube-to-Tube construction in the hands of a craftsman can possess exceptional quality over high-tech monocoque techniques.

Landshark is only building carbon now; tube-to-tube construction.  John Slawta is making bikes with his signature paint-jobs as well as machines dressed-out like the One-Up pictured above that possess the appearance and the spirit of a corporate jet and feels at home in any high-profile, market conscious, winning minded, professional team in the peloton.

mano-a-mano Animaux!