The Raven frame weighs about 1/2lb less than the
equivalent (sized) Super V frame. The marketing
spiel is that the carbon parts add side-to-side
stiffness while the AL "skeleton" provides vertical
strength. I'd suspect you'd be pretty hard-pressed
to feel a difference in how either rides, so its
likely any decision would be based on how you liked
either bike's looks.
I chose a SuperV(2000) over the Raven when it first came
out since (1) I always worry about a "first year design
or release" (2) the initial Ravens only came in size
large (3) I didn't like the entry Raven's looks (grey
body and red fork and swingarm (4) I ddidn't think 1/2
pound was worth the extra money to get the Raven.
To be fair, the Raven appears to have survived the test
of time (concern #1), they are now offered in "medium"
(concern #2), the entry Raven looks better (all blue)
(concern #3). The price differential is still there
though (concern #4), but at least the entry Raven is
spec'd pretty well...
Good luck with your decision. They are both great bikes.
> what's so special about the Raven frame, other than the tech factor of
> the hybrid carbon/alum construction?
> Is it worth the extra 30-40% cost for the Raven frame? Are they
> significantly lighter, or ride much better than the standard Super V
> aluminum frame?
leave no trace.... Rick Brusuelas