VeloNews on Frame Stiffness

link to article? i guess it could have been print...

F

Frank W. Marrs III said:

link to article?

Nope.

Quoted message said:

i guess it could have been print...

Yup.â—Š

And on the web.... thank you Cervelo:
http://www.cervelo.com/reviews/Flexing%20Their%20Muscles.pdf

Also note the following:

Tech Talk: Frame testing - two corrections

By VeloNews interactive
This report filed April 4, 2006

Our Tech Report on frame stiffness in VeloNews issue 5, "Flexing Their
Muscles," contained two errors, one of measurement and one of protocol.

We incorrectly reported the weight of the Specialized S-Works Tarmac
56cm frame. The correct weight of this frame is 989 grams, or 2.180
pounds.

The suitability of the 1999 Trek OCLV frame we used for comparison
purposes was called into question at the conclusion of the test. Our
intention in including the Trek was to use it as a well-accepted
benchmark for carbon frame performance, prior to the recent push to
develop ProTour frames that weigh less than 900 grams (see "Road Frames
Version 0.9" in the 2006 VeloNews Buyer's Guide for the complete story
on these frames). The Trek frame performed very well in the tests.
However, while reviewing the results at the conclusion of the tests, we
found a disconformity with the predicted correlation, indicating that
the frame may have suffered a delamination of the bottom bracket
threaded insert into the carbon shell at some point in its service
life. While we noted this discrepancy in the text of the article, we
should have excluded the frame from the test until the condition of the
frame was verified.

VeloNews regrets the errors.

41 said:

-Testing for frame stiffness is not so straightforward and the various
procedures of the manufacturers do not all agree, each one testing
somewhat different components of it.

Gary Klein's US patent 4,500,103 includes a description
of an apparatus and method to measure frame stiffness
(not the only possible method, of course).

The first claim in that patent refers to, in so many words,
a diamond frame that measures stiffer than a certain value.
As is common in patents, more specific claims follow as well.
I always thought it was bizarre, though, that the USPTO
granted a patent for "a frame that is at least this stiff".

Tom Ace

In article <[email hidden]>,

Tom Ace said:

41 said:

-Testing for frame stiffness is not so straightforward and the
various procedures of the manufacturers do not all agree, each one
testing somewhat different components of it.

Gary Klein's US patent 4,500,103 includes a description of an
apparatus and method to measure frame stiffness (not the only
possible method, of course).

The first claim in that patent refers to, in so many words, a diamond
frame that measures stiffer than a certain value. As is common in
patents, more specific claims follow as well. I always thought it was
bizarre, though, that the USPTO granted a patent for "a frame that is
at least this stiff".

Not a surprise at all. The USPTO will grant a patent on just about
anything, even incredibly generic and over-reaching designs. It appears
that there is no one inside the USPTO that can actually evaluate the
merits of a patent application.

41 said:

In a recent issue of VeloNews, and in I believe it was the March 17th
issue, they had two articles on frame stiffness. In the first, which I
missed, they tested about a dozen frames, mostly modern ones of carbon
or aluminum, but also some traditional ones. The results contained
"some surprises" (don't know what they were), and subsequently they
received much criticism from manufacturers and others concerning their
testing protocols.In the second article, they went to these various
manufacturers and interviewed them about their own internal protocols,
and also observed some of the testing.

Suggest you call them and get the back issues you want, nothing like
reading stuff for yourself.
--D-y

Ron Ruff said:

And on the web.... thank you Cervelo:
http://www.cervelo.com/reviews/Flexing%20Their%20Muscles.pdf

Ah, thanks for the link. Well, I don't see what was surprising in that
test- surely they don't mean they were suprised that a new carbon frame
delaminated right on the test bench. No, the real surprises were in the
follow-up article, namely:

-the big differences in the testing procedures for torsional stiffness
as used by the different manufacturers, and the fact that (at least
with carbon frames), they give inequivalent results. An example being
that when Lance found one frame completely unsatisfactory in terms of
stiffness, Trek engineers could find no difference in their stiffness
tests. However, they did find the difference in their fatigue test.

-that torsional stiffness affects riding comfort so much. Companies
like Trek also test for stiffness via rider reports of the team riders,
and the bikes the engineers thought would be best were often not so to
the riders, in terms of either comfort or stiffness.

-that no manufacturers (other than Specialized, who have yet to
actually use the data in a production bicycle) test for vertical
compliance, i.e. that- at least behind the scenes- they are not as
stupid as we thought.

Tim McNamara said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Tom Ace said:

41 said:

-Testing for frame stiffness is not so straightforward and the
various procedures of the manufacturers do not all agree, each one
testing somewhat different components of it.

Gary Klein's US patent 4,500,103 includes a description of an
apparatus and method to measure frame stiffness (not the only
possible method, of course).

The first claim in that patent refers to, in so many words, a diamond
frame that measures stiffer than a certain value. As is common in
patents, more specific claims follow as well. I always thought it was
bizarre, though, that the USPTO granted a patent for "a frame that is
at least this stiff".

Not a surprise at all. The USPTO will grant a patent on just about
anything, even incredibly generic and over-reaching designs. It appears
that there is no one inside the USPTO that can actually evaluate the
merits of a patent application.

True. They tacitly admitted that some years ago and now simply register rather
than evaluate. Nobody can know all this stuff.

Ron

41 said:

In a recent issue of VeloNews, and in I believe it was the March 17th
issue, they had two articles on frame stiffness. In the first, which I
missed, they tested about a dozen frames, mostly modern ones of carbon
or aluminum, but also some traditional ones. The results contained
"some surprises" (don't know what they were), and subsequently they
received much criticism from manufacturers and others concerning their
testing protocols.In the second article, they went to these various
manufacturers and interviewed them about their own internal protocols,
and also observed some of the testing.

Some highlights:

-In the old days there was little testing for frame stiffness, because
it came automatically with the round metal tubes. Now with carbon
frames, everything must be designed in, and so the interest in testing.

-Testing for frame stiffness is not so straightforward and the various
procedures of the manufacturers do not all agree, each one testing
somewhat different components of it. One example of interest: at Trek,
the engineers would come up with various improvements and submit them
to Lance for testing. Often he would say, no, that sucks, the old way
was better. Or, that such and such a frame was noodly. Upon testing for
that in their frame stiffness tests, they would find no indication of
any difference; but in their tests for fatigue due to pedalling, they
would.

-All this refers to torsional frame stiffnesses of various sorts.
Specialized was the only manufacturer to test for vertical compliance,
and they have not actually used that data yet in any commercially
available design. They claim they will have a bicycle based on that
data available in 2007, I believe it was.

-As such, torsional stiffness did affect perceived comfort, a lot.

If anyone read the original article in the March 17th issue, it would
be nice if you could post a summary. And a better one than this: I read
the article about a month ago and did not have time to post about it
back then.
P

The guy that owns the lab that does the testing comes in all the time.
We talk to him about this test(he borrowed a Mondonico as a traditional
steel frame for the test), along with crank stiffness and ceramic
bearing testing. He says some frames are stiffer than others, along
with cranksets. He says ceramic BB are smoother than steel...Then we
ask him what it all means and he repeats, some frames and cranks are
stiffer, ceramic balls run more smoothly...

In other words, geeezzz, it really means next to nada to anybody except
the marketeers.

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

The guy that owns the lab that does the testing comes in all the time.
We talk to him about this test(he borrowed a Mondonico as a traditional
steel frame for the test), along with crank stiffness and ceramic
bearing testing. He says some frames are stiffer than others, along
with cranksets. He says ceramic BB are smoother than steel...Then we
ask him what it all means and he repeats, some frames and cranks are
stiffer, ceramic balls run more smoothly...

In other words, geeezzz, it really means next to nada to anybody except
the marketeers.

If I say, "0.6% of nothing" again, you can hit me with your favorite
"reality" comeback...

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

The guy that owns the lab that does the testing comes in all the time.
We talk to him about this test(he borrowed a Mondonico as a traditional
steel frame for the test), along with crank stiffness and ceramic
bearing testing. He says some frames are stiffer than others, along
with cranksets. He says ceramic BB are smoother than steel...Then we
ask him what it all means and he repeats, some frames and cranks are
stiffer, ceramic balls run more smoothly...

In other words, geeezzz, it really means next to nada to anybody except
the marketeers.

Don't discount the placebo effect - it seems to be a major advantage
to the terminally gullible. Slap in a bottom bracket with ceramic
balls, tell him it's gonna make him go faster and - [censored] - he goes
faster. Maybe all these marketers are on to something.

;-)

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

RonSonic said:

Tim McNamara said:

Not a surprise at all. The USPTO will grant a patent on just about
anything, even incredibly generic and over-reaching designs. It appears
that there is no one inside the USPTO that can actually evaluate the
merits of a patent application.

True. They tacitly admitted that some years ago and now simply register rather
than evaluate. Nobody can know all this stuff.

They can, they just can't afford to. The PTO is one of the more
overworked and underpaid parts of the government. They have,
however, wisely said up-front that if you claim perpetual motion
you just shouldn't file.

--Blair

Ron Ruff said:

And on the web.... thank you Cervelo:
http://www.cervelo.com/reviews/Flexing%20Their%20Muscles.pdf

Okay. Why do they only fix the head tube for the torsional test?
Why not also fix the rear dropouts?

Also, this is a static-load test. Is putting a rider on the bike and
asking
"how'd that feel?" their only dynamic-load testing?

--Blair

41 said:

In a recent issue of VeloNews, and in I believe it was the March 17th
issue, they had two articles on frame stiffness. In the first, which I
missed, they tested about a dozen frames, mostly modern ones of carbon
or aluminum, but also some traditional ones. The results contained
"some surprises" (don't know what they were), and subsequently they
received much criticism from manufacturers and others concerning their
testing protocols.In the second article, they went to these various
manufacturers and interviewed them about their own internal protocols,
and also observed some of the testing.

Some highlights:

-In the old days there was little testing for frame stiffness, because
it came automatically with the round metal tubes. Now with carbon
frames, everything must be designed in, and so the interest in testing.

Did all of these bicycling people start riding only after Lance boy
came along? I'm just a youngster but apparently I have decades and
decades more bicycling experience than any of the people running
bicycle factories today. Bicycling magazine had its Tarantula frame
testing machine 25 or so years ago. They had several articles in the
magazine about how stiff frames were, etc. I think for a few years
they put all of the bikes being tested on the machine to get a
stiffness number. Testing for frame stiffness is not a new concept.

Quoted message said:

-Testing for frame stiffness is not so straightforward and the various
procedures of the manufacturers do not all agree, each one testing
somewhat different components of it. One example of interest: at Trek,
the engineers would come up with various improvements and submit them
to Lance for testing. Often he would say, no, that sucks, the old way
was better. Or, that such and such a frame was noodly. Upon testing for
that in their frame stiffness tests, they would find no indication of
any difference; but in their tests for fatigue due to pedalling, they
would.

-All this refers to torsional frame stiffnesses of various sorts.
Specialized was the only manufacturer to test for vertical compliance,
and they have not actually used that data yet in any commercially
available design. They claim they will have a bicycle based on that
data available in 2007, I believe it was.

-As such, torsional stiffness did affect perceived comfort, a lot.

If anyone read the original article in the March 17th issue, it would
be nice if you could post a summary. And a better one than this: I read
the article about a month ago and did not have time to post about it
back then.
P

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

He says ceramic BB are smoother than steel

Have any results of objective testing of these bearings in bicycles
been published? I haven't seen any...

Quoted message said:

Did all of these bicycling people start riding only after Lance boy
came along? I'm just a youngster but apparently I have decades and
decades more bicycling experience than any of the people running
bicycle factories today. Bicycling magazine had its Tarantula frame
testing machine 25 or so years ago. They had several articles in the
magazine about how stiff frames were, etc. I think for a few years
they put all of the bikes being tested on the machine to get a
stiffness number. Testing for frame stiffness is not a new concept.

Apropos of a google search for related material, an
interesting hit:

http://www.sudibe.de/articles/billonframetesting.html

Look for the part about comparing subjective and objective data
near "conscientious panel".

Although I think it should be possible to determine stability
objectively
by instrumenting a bike with an accelerometer and letting a lot of
people ride it. The less stable bikes will have a bigger wobble
amplitude.

--Blair

Frame stiffness matters -- it affects how the bike feels and handles.
Maybe not just rolling along, but in extreme circumstance, like a
hard-standing start, or going hard ouf of the saddle, or very hard
cornering. In the first two cases I'm not sure that the stiffer,
better-feeling bike is actually faster. But the last item is
important -- it gives the rider more confidence which is important in
hard cornering.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Quoted message said:

stiffness number. Testing for frame stiffness is not a new concept.

According to the article, apparently for the manufacturers it is.
a