I hold a derisive view of reviewers who feign—at least in my view, many of them feign—to perceive differences between one bike's "harsh" ride versus another bike's "supple" ride. I maintain that most of the value in a bike's superior comfort can be explained by other factors, primarily tire pressure and which cycling shorts happened not to be in the dirty clothes bin when the reviewer chose to ride the bike he was to write about—if, indeed, he ever did ride the bike.

But I had a unique opportunity. I happened to have, in my garage, two identically equipped bikes: same size, almost identical geometry, same fork, same parts, same saddle, exactly the same wheelset in every regard, same tires. There was no difference between these two bikes whatsoever (with one small exception noted below)—except that one was built out of Easton's Ultralight tubing and the other out of Easton's necked-down Scandium tubing. It provided me with a good opportunity to actually test whether one aluminum tubeset or another can produce a perceivable difference.

Maybe I'm just a philistine who can't perceive the differences others can. Maybe I, with my cheeseburger tastes, can't detect that oaky flavor—with a touch of cherry, a dash of vanilla and a hint of cassis—the way others can. Maybe I just prefer to believe others can't detect these nuances any better than I, whether it's red wine or bike frames. But then I have personally known some of those who've written the bike reviews you’ve read over the years. Based on my firsthand exposure to their acumen and technical sensitivity, I feel my skepticism was justly earned and is prudently held. So there.

Here is a good chance (I thought to myself) to see if the hype is for real. Instead of just riding a bike with a Scandium-built frame, I can ride two otherwise identical bikes and switch back and forth without any parts swapping, etc. Jump off one and onto the other. Just a swig of water to swish out my palette and I'm tasting a Clos du Bois Cabernet after the Clos du Val, as it were.

I had ridden probably 1,500 miles on the bike with the Ultralight tubeset (a Quintana Roo De Luz), and when I built up another bike with the Scandium tubeset I used all the same make and model parts. I then commenced to ride 1,200 or 1,500 miles on that bike. I liked that second bike, but it had been a couple of months since I'd ridden the first one, so I couldn't really compare the two. Then it occurred to me that I still had the first bike in the garage and could perform a side-by-side test.

Golly. There really is a difference between these two tubesets. Even enough for a philistine to detect. The best way to explain it is that the Ultralight bike rides like it has about five more pounds of air pressure in the tires. It just has the slightest bit more conductivity.

Before you roll your eyes at that description, let me explain what I mean. I don't want to use the word "harsh," because that has a negative connotation that is not entirely fair. In a way, I like the way I can feel every bit of the road's topography. I think in shorter, harder rides, I might like it even better. The Ultralight frame conducts, or transmits, with precision everything over which the tires roll.

The Scandium frame has just that extra bit of compliance, which doesn't make a lot of difference, really, until you're 50 or 60 miles into the ride. From that point onward, you'll reminisce about the Scandium.

Why does the Scandium feel a little more complaint? I doubt it has anything to do with the alloy. I'm fairly secure in the notion that it's all about tube diameters. The Ultralight's top tube is 1-3/8" in diameter along its length. The Scandium tube is 1-1/4" in diameter as it attaches to the head tube, and shortly thereafter it narrows (necks down) to 1-1/8". Easton claims the Scandium alloy is a much higher-grade aluminum that allows them to use thinner tubes and thinner diameters while achieving characteristics similar to frames built with fatter tubes. The Scandium downtube is narrower as well. Its diameter is 1-3/8", compared to the 1-1/2" tube the Ultralight bike is built with.

Is the bike as laterally stiff as the Ultralight? Hard to say. I didn't measure it. I've got plenty of experience sprinting on both bikes, and they both sprint fine. I don't notice a measureable difference, but there is one item these bikes do not share: The Scandium bike has a lighter #7075 handlebar (made by Syntace), which is a bit more flexible. This makes it a more comfortable bar but less useful for sprinting. I can't precisely tell when I sprint whether the extra flex I feel is altogether in the handlebar or if there is some in the frame.

I think a Scandium bike has its value for triathletes because in a long ride glued to the saddle in the aero position, a bike with a bit more compliance is a needful thing. But I cringe as I write this because frames just aren't built for compliance. There is no suspension in a road frame. Never was. Just look at the thing. See any suspension there?

Having said that, my Scandium-built frame is a bit more comfy. What can I say? It DOES have a hint of cassis.

Realize that these are round-tubed bikes I'm comparing here. What about Easton's aero Scandium tubeset? Don't know. Yes, I've ridden a frame with these tubes. In fact I own one, not so much because it's Scandium, but because the tubes are arguably aero (26mm-wide downtube instead of 35mm, 36mm, or 45mm, the widths of OTHER so-called aero tubes). But I've also ridden bikes with similar tube shapes (e.g., Cervelo), and they ride just as comfortably. Also, I didn't have these bikes side by side, with the same components, so I could ride one after another. So I can't say that the aero-tubed bikes are any more comfortable than the bikes with which they'd compete. I can only speak of the differences in the round-tubed frames.

I also can't say how the Scandium bike might fare versus a different round-tubed aluminum bike like a Principia, a Klein, or a Cannondale. But if my view on tube diameters holds any water, the Scandium tubes are going to be hard to beat for comfort.