Opinions on aluminum frames?

Discussion in 'Road Cycling' started by Archer, Mar 13, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Waxxer

    Waxxer Guest

    All are fabulous bikes. In fact I am thinking seriously about a C-40 or the
    CT1. I have ridden them both. Calfee also makes a SUPERB Carbon bike. As far as the Master X goes,
    it still remains one of the most popular of traditional bicycles. The Italians always get it
    right when it comes to anything that rolls on wheels--except Fiat.

    The US Masters Team will be riding Serotta Otrotts--another line of Italian influence.

    Regards,

    "Fabrizio Mazzoleni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    >
    > "waxxer" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > > Can you paradigm shift?
    > >
    > No problem, how about down to the 15 cog to drop everyone on the climb to La Plagne.
    >
    > The only Colnagos that are raced nowadays are the C-40, CT-1, and the CF3.
     


  2. Waxxer

    Waxxer Guest

    Now that is real value add. How do you feel about racial differences? Are you so fast to stereotype.
    Probably not. Is this a have, and have not issue with you or do you like to piss on other people?

    "Eric S. Sande" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > >If so, I think that would run counter to reality. It's my experience that Ti bikes are
    > >consistently the creakiest bikes out there... or maybe Ti bike owners just aren't as good about
    > >keeping things clean & tight on their bikes? Seems unlikely.
    >
    > Highly unlikely.
    >
    > Of course we know that Ti bike owners don't ride that much, so it isn't surprising that those
    > slackers don't regularly maintain those corrosion-free frames.
    >
    > --
    >
    > _______________________ALL AMIGA IN MY MIND_______________________ ------------------"Buddy Holly,
    > the Texas Elvis"------------------
    > __________306.350.357.38>>[email protected]__________
     
  3. Mike S.

    Mike S. Guest

    "waxxer" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > Now that is real value add. How do you feel about racial differences? Are you so fast to
    > stereotype. Probably not. Is this a have, and have not
    issue
    > with you or do you like to piss on other people?
    >
    >
    > "Eric S. Sande" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > > >If so, I think that would run counter to reality. It's my experience that Ti bikes are
    > > >consistently the creakiest bikes out there... or maybe Ti bike owners just aren't as good about
    > > >keeping things clean & tight on their bikes? Seems unlikely.
    > >
    > > Highly unlikely.
    > >
    > > Of course we know that Ti bike owners don't ride that much, so it isn't surprising that those
    > > slackers don't regularly maintain those corrosion-free frames.
    > >
    > > --
    I can confirm that in San Diego Co. the Ti bikes are ridden by the same guys that drive Porsches and
    Vettes. They're old enough to be able to afford them, which means they don't have as much time to
    ride. Granted there are exceptions, but in my admittedly informal observations up and down the
    coast, it holds true.

    Mike

    > >
    > > _______________________ALL AMIGA IN MY MIND_______________________ ------------------"Buddy
    > > Holly, the Texas Elvis"------------------
    > > __________306.350.357.38>>[email protected]__________
     
  4. Mike S.

    Mike S. Guest

    Since we're off on tangents, I thought I'd pop another one in here.

    I was thinking about the pedaling motion today (when I was helping a friend move and not out
    riding). The cranks are levers of a fixed length, right? It feels like we're pushing down on the
    crankset, but I'd bet that we are pushing down and in towards the BB. Seems to me that the BB is
    always moving around slightly in small circles.

    As the cranks move past 3 o'clock, the maximum torque is being applied down and in. As the crank
    moves to tdc (or bdc), the torque is at its least both sideways and down.

    We have two power strokes per revolution causing the bb to move slightly sideways relative to the
    plane of the bike frame. Since you're bending the tubing laterally, it is no longer purely in
    compression, right? If the tubing is no longer purely in compression, wouldn't it stand that there
    could be flex along the length of the tube?

    As I stood and sprinted on my SL steel bike I could watch the BB move laterally 1-2cm. I know I was
    fascinated by this, sometimes to the detriment of my sprint. Most of the movement was when the
    cranks were at their 3 o'clock positions on both sides.

    It would seem to me that if you're bending the tubing laterally every rotation, there may be
    other forces acting on the frame at the same time either amplifying or minimizing the effects of
    the bending up to and including rider weight, position on the bike, wheels/tires, and
    fork/bars/stem flex.

    Like I said in one of my earlier posts: I'm not sure what makes a bike ride differently from one
    material to another, but there's got to be something going on that isn't being addressed by the
    "stiffness test."

    I would similarly bet that steel and Ti are non-linear when it comes to reacting to small inputs
    while AL reacts fairly linearly to the same inputs. Anyone done any studies on this? I'm willing to
    be convinced, but it'll take some real doing, rather than just saying "I'm an engineer and that's
    what I say is true."

    Again, I'm no engineer, but I've ridden enough different bikes over my 15 years of riding to
    call bullshit.

    Mike

    "archer" <[email protected]_hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > I know Aluminum frames have had a reputation (deserved or not) of being stiff, and I'm wondering
    > if that's still true, with the different alloys they use now. My current bike is a 20+ year old
    > steel-framed Schwinn LeTour (a.k.a LeTank).
    >
    > I'm looking at a Specialized Sequoiah Expert or equivalent, and there seems to be a lot to choose
    > from in that range. Pretty much all the bikes in that price range seem to have aluminum frames
    > with carbon forks, and I'm curious how the ride might compare between the two (leaving the
    > suspended seat on this particular model out of the equation). The LeTour has 27 x 1.25, 85psi
    > tires, and the Sequoiah has 700 x 26c tires, but I don't know the pressure.
    >
    > Opinions, please?
    >
    > --
    > David Kerber An optimist says "Good morning, Lord." While a pessimist says "Good Lord, it's
    > morning".
    >
    > Remove the ns_ from the address before e-mailing.
     
  5. >Now that is real value add. How do you feel about racial differences? Are you so fast to
    >stereotype. Probably not. Is this a have, and have not issue with you or do you like to piss on
    >other people?

    Read more carefully. The context and language suggested that the riders, not the bikes, were Ti.

    I think you are either humor impaired or else I was not sufficiently precise. Point noted, I will
    make no further assumptions of literacy when posting to the ng.

    --

    _______________________ALL AMIGA IN MY MIND_______________________ ------------------"Buddy Holly,
    the Texas Elvis"------------------
    __________306.350.357.38>>[email protected]__________
     
  6. Mike S.

    Mike S. Guest

    "Peter Cole" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > "B. Sanders" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > "Peter Cole" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > >
    > > > It's not that complicated, bicycles are simple devices, the science/engineering is well
    > > > understood.
    > >
    > > Apparently not, since we seem to have such vociferous disagreement for
    which
    > > the experts cannot account adequately.
    >
    > Sure they can, it's called the "placebo effect".
    >
    > > You're arrogant and presumptuous. I, for one, have absolutely no
    concern
    > > for brand or price, or any other factor that could potentially "taint"
    one's
    > > viewpoint in any way that could be tantamount to gullibility. If I have
    no
    > > care for brands, recommendations or any other evaluation but my own,
    then
    > > pray tell, how can that be called gullibility?
    >
    > From your previous post: "I'm having a beautiful Soulcraft Royale custom road frameset built as I
    > write this. It will fit in my stable next to my WTB 6/4 Ti hardtail, my Klein Attitude (aluminum)
    > hardtail, my aluminum disc-equipped Van Dessel Super Fly "all 'rounder" and assorted other bikes.
    > I expect the Soulcraft to live up to its reputation (and Salsa bloodline) as a classic road frame
    > that will be a pleasure to ride on fast centuries or all-day group rides."
    >
    > "No care for brands", you've *got* to be kidding.
    >
    > > The people here claiming that they can feel differences in wheels, seatposts, handlebars and
    > > frames may not be engineers; but
    they
    > > do have sensitive instrumentation that they use to detect fine
    differences
    > > in bikes: Their own bodies. Humans are finely-honed instruments, whose sensory abilities are
    > > boggling in their precision.
    >
    > That's nonsense, but of course it's the only rebuttal to objectivity: subjectivity. Unless your
    > finely-honed butt is a calibrated accelerometer.
    >
    > > It really doesn't matter what arrogant engineers think. It doesn't
    matter
    > > what the magazines print, or what the 16-yr-old wrench at the bike shop thinks. It doesn't
    > > matter how much it costs, how light it is, or what
    it's
    > > made of. There *are* differences in frames, wheels, cranks, seatposts, saddles, and most other
    > > bike components. Are they huge differences? Perhaps not. Are they detectable? Quite definitely.
    >
    > Dude, it's not a violin, it's a tubular metal truss.

    Which brings me to Stradivarius violins. They're just violins, they have to sound just the same as
    every other violin. They're made from wood, and all wood reacts the same when compressed into
    violin shape.

    I just got done building a Specialized S-works 'cross frame for a friend of mine. He rode it around
    the parking lot for all of several minutes. His first reaction: this bike has a snappy ride. The
    parts (wheels/tires, etc.) came from his donor bike, so there's no difference there. So, there's got
    to be SOMETHING going on.

    Mike

    >
    > > I'm very tired of having arrogant engineers flash their credentials and
    then
    > > tell me I can't possibly be noticing that which I have quite definitely noticed, time and time
    > > again for many years. They are simply wrong.
    >
    > Who do you think designs the bikes, the materials they're made of and the components they're
    > equipped with, elves?
    >
    > > I'd be glad to partake in a double blind study, if someone wants to put
    it
    > > together. Bring it on.
    >
    > It's been done, too bad you missed it.
     
  7. Buck

    Buck Guest

    "Mike S." <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]... <snip>

    > I just got done building a Specialized S-works 'cross frame for a friend
    of
    > mine. He rode it around the parking lot for all of several minutes. His first reaction: this bike
    > has a snappy ride. The parts (wheels/tires,
    etc.)
    > came from his donor bike, so there's no difference there. So, there's got to be SOMETHING
    > going on.

    While it isn't stated, I suppose that the former bike wasn't a cyclocross bike and was made from
    some material different than the old frame. We all know that there will be differences in geometry
    between road and cyclocross bikes. Different tube lengths connected at different angles will make
    different bikes feel different. It is also very difficult to quantify the differences between two
    bikes if you can't ride them back-to-back.

    When I switch between my different bikes, I can feel big differences and each feels "better" than
    the last one I rode, but always for different reasons. Get on the full-suspension MTB and it reminds
    you how rough that road bike rides. Get on the aluminum road bike and it reminds you how mushy the
    MTB feels. Jump on the old steel road bike and it tells you how twitchy that road racer is. Switch
    to the rigid MTB with slicks and it just feels so smooth and stable. Each one has unique
    characteristics, but I wouldn' attribute any of it to frame material.

    -Buck
     
  8. Mike S.

    Mike S. Guest

    "Mike S." <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > Since we're off on tangents, I thought I'd pop another one in here.
    >
    > I was thinking about the pedaling motion today (when I was helping a
    friend
    > move and not out riding). The cranks are levers of a fixed length, right? It feels like we're
    > pushing down on the crankset, but I'd bet that we are pushing down and in towards the BB. Seems to
    > me that the BB is always moving around slightly in small circles.
    >
    > As the cranks move past 3 o'clock, the maximum torque is being applied
    down
    > and in. As the crank moves to tdc (or bdc), the torque is at its least
    both
    > sideways and down.
    >
    > We have two power strokes per revolution causing the bb to move slightly sideways relative to the
    > plane of the bike frame. Since you're bending
    the
    > tubing laterally, it is no longer purely in compression, right? If the tubing is no longer purely
    > in compression, wouldn't it stand that there could be flex along the length of the tube?
    >
    > As I stood and sprinted on my SL steel bike I could watch the BB move laterally 1-2cm. I know I
    > was fascinated by this, sometimes to the detriment of my sprint. Most of the movement was when the
    > cranks were at their 3 o'clock positions on both sides.
    >
    > It would seem to me that if you're bending the tubing laterally every rotation, there may be
    > other forces acting on the frame at the same time either amplifying or minimizing the effects of
    > the bending up to and including rider weight, position on the bike, wheels/tires, and
    > fork/bars/stem flex.
    >
    > Like I said in one of my earlier posts: I'm not sure what makes a bike
    ride
    > differently from one material to another, but there's got to be something going on that isn't
    > being addressed by the "stiffness test."
    >
    > I would similarly bet that steel and Ti are non-linear when it comes to reacting to small inputs
    > while AL reacts fairly linearly to the same
    inputs.
    > Anyone done any studies on this? I'm willing to be convinced, but it'll take some real doing,
    > rather than just saying "I'm an engineer and that's what I say is true."
    >
    > Again, I'm no engineer, but I've ridden enough different bikes over my 15 years of riding to call
    > bullshit.
    >
    > Mike

    I'm even going to give y'all some things to go read:

    http://www.calfeedesign.com/Calfee_TWP.pdf A little more specific to carbon, since that's
    what they sell

    http://www.solace.mh.se/~turbo/mek/metals/metal.htm A primer of bike materials. Doesn't really
    answer the specific question, but interesting nonetheless.

    >
    > "archer" <[email protected]_hotmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > I know Aluminum frames have had a reputation (deserved or not) of being stiff, and I'm wondering
    > > if that's still true, with the different alloys they use now. My current bike is a 20+ year old
    > > steel-framed Schwinn LeTour (a.k.a LeTank).
    > >
    > > I'm looking at a Specialized Sequoiah Expert or equivalent, and there seems to be a lot to
    > > choose from in that range. Pretty much all the bikes in that price range seem to have aluminum
    > > frames with carbon
    forks,
    > > and I'm curious how the ride might compare between the two (leaving the suspended seat on this
    > > particular model out of the equation). The
    LeTour
    > > has 27 x 1.25, 85psi tires, and the Sequoiah has 700 x 26c tires, but I don't know the pressure.
    > >
    > > Opinions, please?
    > >
    > > --
    > > David Kerber An optimist says "Good morning, Lord." While a pessimist says "Good Lord, it's
    > > morning".
    > >
    > > Remove the ns_ from the address before e-mailing.
     
  9. > Which brings me to Stradivarius violins. They're just violins, they have
    to
    > sound just the same as every other violin. They're made from wood, and
    all
    > wood reacts the same when compressed into violin shape.

    I think you're onto something here, a point I was thinking about making earlier. And yes, I think
    the human body is very good at detecting subtle differences in sound and, since we're talking about
    vibration in the frame, then essentially differences in how a frame "feels." You don't need an
    accelerometer for that. And for the violin, I'm sure you can make perfectly decent music with
    either a $300 or $100,000 one. But would they sound the same? No. Would it be easy to measure the
    differences? Also no. Would it be difficult to figure out exactly *what* to look for (in
    measuring)? Probably.

    >
    > I just got done building a Specialized S-works 'cross frame for a friend
    of
    > mine. He rode it around the parking lot for all of several minutes. His first reaction: this bike
    > has a snappy ride. The parts (wheels/tires,
    etc.)
    > came from his donor bike, so there's no difference there. So, there's got to be SOMETHING
    > going on.

    Unfortunately, that point goes nowhere. Anytime you get just about anything new & exciting, you tend
    to magnify the differences, especially the good things... and minimize the bad. Part of it's just
    plain rationalization, part of it is just a desire for something new and a bit different. Plus even
    very subtle changes in geometry from one bike to another will account for a lot.

    --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles http://www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
     
  10. Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote:

    > I looked through all the old magazines I have laying around, and couldn't find it. IIRC, it
    > would have been about 1995, long before 'Bicycle Guide' became 'Bicyclist'. Maybe someone else
    > archived a copy?

    According to this post it was December 1996:

    <http://groups.google.com/groups?q=thron+test+tubing+group:rec.bicycles.tech&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&sel-
    m=34287bcf.9179230%40nntp.erinet.com&rnum=1>

    or search rec.bicycles.tech for e.g. "thron test tubing"

    I just adopted a 1988 Cannondale with 1.75" downtube and enormous seatstays, is that one of the
    straight gauge frames? Anyone know what the hierarchy of Cannondale models was then? This is a
    touring frame with 46cm chainstays, it would be great for a blind test of geometry vs frame material
    in ride comfort, except that it would be impossible to disguise.
     
  11. Jon Isaacs

    Jon Isaacs Guest

    >We have two power strokes per revolution causing the bb to move slightly sideways relative to the
    >plane of the bike frame. Since you're bending the tubing laterally, it is no longer purely in
    >compression, right?

    >If the tubing is no longer purely in compression, wouldn't it stand that there could be flex along
    >the length of the tube?

    This has been explained previously. Maybe it was gone over to quickly but the stiffness of the frame
    is important in reacting the pedaling forces. So when you pedal, as you noticed, the bottom bracket
    does move.

    But this does not affect how the bike "rides", the ride is the response to the road and these are
    two separate issues.

    If you are interested in seeing the results of the tests that Damon did on the lateral stiffness of
    various frames here it is:

    http://www.sheldonbrown.com/rinard/rinard_frametest.html

    >It would seem to me that if you're bending the tubing laterally every rotation, there may be
    >other forces acting on the frame at the same time either amplifying or minimizing the effects of
    >the bending up to and including rider weight, position on the bike, wheels/tires, and
    >fork/bars/stem flex.

    I might seem that way, I suggest getting a book on engineering, "Mechanics of Materials" by Beer and
    Johnson is a good one. That way you don't have to be guessing and taking other peoples word for
    something.

    In this case the point is that bending loads applied by your pedalling and loads that come from the
    road are in two "orthogonal" directions so for elastic response, (no permenent deformation) they
    are separate.

    >I would similarly bet that steel and Ti are non-linear when it comes to reacting to small inputs
    >while AL reacts fairly linearly to the same inputs.

    Sorry, all these metal are extremely linear in their responses. The relationship between the force
    applied and the displacement is known as Hooke' Law and the linear portion is known as Young's
    Modulus. The energy absorbed during a loading cycle is known as hysteresis and for metals that are
    elastically loaded (and unless you permanently bend your frame, it is elastic) then the energy
    absorbed is essentially zero for all structural materials.

    Hysteresis is the mechanism that dampens out vibrations. The rubber in your tires has hysteresis and
    dampening as does the padding on your bars and the seat.

    >Anyone done any studies on this?

    The data on this is endless and these materials have been well characterized for many, many years.
    One of the first measurements any engineering student performs is the measure the elastic (and the
    inelastic or plastic) response of various materials, steel and aluminum for sure, probably not Ti
    because it is expensive but Ti has been well characterized.

    My personal expertise is testing materials at high strain rates, which means that the total
    experiment lasts a few hundred microseconds, sometimes less than 1 microsecond. Even in these
    regimes, materials remain elastic with essentially the same response as they do quasi-statically.

    >I'm willing to be convinced, but it'll take some real doing, rather than just saying "I'm an
    >engineer and that's what I say is true."

    I have tried to supply some reasons. I have taken a fair amount of time trying to explain these
    things on a level that is understandable.

    To understand this stuff though, you need increase your knowledge. You have a hypothesis that frame
    material does affect the ride quality of a bike. If you want to show this to be true, you need to do
    some investigation.

    It is apparent that your mind has been awakened and you are thinking about some of this stuff. Now
    is the time to do some reading so that you can answer the questions you are asking for yourself.

    >Again, I'm no engineer, but I've ridden enough different bikes over my 15 years of riding to call
    >bullshit.
    >

    Well, I have been riding bikes for about 15 years also and I have been asking the questions that you
    have just started to ask. There are people here like Jobst that have been riding far longer, asking
    far more complicated questions.

    Listen and learn.

    Do some tests, take your bike apart and push on it, figure out what moves and what doesn't.

    jon isaacs
     
  12. waxxer wrote:
    >
    > This is great! We need to start a new thread!

    I doubt it. Clearly, you're going to remain more impressed with marketing hype than with technical
    information. Clearly, you don't have the background necessary to evaluate technical information.
    Clearly, anyone with education and officially recognized competence is beneath your contempt.

    I've dealt with similar people many times before. Occasionally, I've met one who can be convinced to
    at least _try_ learning - but that's been rare. And it's not going to happen this time.

    --
    Frank Krygowski [email protected]
     
  13. "Mike S." wrote:
    >
    >
    > I would similarly bet that steel and Ti are non-linear when it comes to reacting to small inputs
    > while AL reacts fairly linearly to the same inputs. Anyone done any studies on this?

    Yes. They started doing studies on this back in the 1700s, IIRC. You can't get a degree in
    mechanical engineering, civil engineering, etc. without doing some of these tests in the lab,
    probably in one of your first freshman technical courses. So the tests have been done hundreds of
    thousands of times. Steel and titanium (and aluminum, and bronze, and nickel, and so on) are linear
    in their reaction to small inputs.

    > I'm willing to be convinced, but it'll take some real doing, rather than just saying "I'm an
    > engineer and that's what I say is true."

    <sigh> We're trying to find ways to explain this to people without technical background. Obviously,
    this isn't an easy thing to do.

    The plumber says to the heart surgeon: "No, really, just inject some Drano. It clears up clogs damn
    quick. I seen it lots of times!"

    What is the heart surgeon supposed to say in reply?

    Jon suggested Beer & Johnson's _Mechanics of Materials_. That's an excellent reference. Another
    interesting one (but harder to find) is _Bicycles and Tricycles: An Elementary Treatise on their
    Design and Construction_. It's an engineering book on bike design, and it's very interesting -
    partly because it was written back in the 1890s! But it explains things people are still asking
    about here (and on rec.bicycles.tech). And yes, it has the results of tests on materials.

    This stuff can be tested ... and tested again, if you like. But someone, I forget who, once said
    "Several months of testing can sometimes save you an hour of library work."

    If you really want to learn about this stuff, hit the library. It's been studied for hundreds of
    years, for purposes far more critical than the comfort of a bicyclist's tush. It's not necessarily
    easy to learn, but it's not black magic either.

    Hmm. As an afterthought, while in the library, it might be a good idea to pick up some books on
    psychology and human perception, too. That's also part of this discussion.

    --
    Frank Krygowski [email protected]
     
  14. Robin Hubert

    Robin Hubert Guest

    "Mike S." <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > Since we're off on tangents, I thought I'd pop another one in here.
    >
    > I was thinking about the pedaling motion today (when I was helping a
    friend
    > move and not out riding). The cranks are levers of a fixed length, right? It feels like we're
    > pushing down on the crankset, but I'd bet that we are pushing down and in towards the BB. Seems to
    > me that the BB is always moving around slightly in small circles.
    >
    > As the cranks move past 3 o'clock, the maximum torque is being applied
    down
    > and in. As the crank moves to tdc (or bdc), the torque is at its least
    both
    > sideways and down.
    >
    > We have two power strokes per revolution causing the bb to move slightly sideways relative to the
    > plane of the bike frame. Since you're bending
    the
    > tubing laterally, it is no longer purely in compression, right? If the tubing is no longer purely
    > in compression, wouldn't it stand that there could be flex along the length of the tube?

    I don't know much about that. I'd post this on wreck tech.

    >
    > As I stood and sprinted on my SL steel bike I could watch the BB move laterally 2cm.

    Scary, dude!

    >I know I was fascinated by this, sometimes to the detriment of my sprint. Most of the movement was
    >when the cranks were at their 3 o'clock positions on both sides.

    That makes sense (I think). Isn't that the most powerful part of the stroke?

    >
    > It would seem to me that if you're bending the tubing laterally every rotation, there may be
    > other forces acting on the frame at the same time either amplifying or minimizing the effects of
    > the bending up to and including rider weight, position on the bike, wheels/tires, and
    > fork/bars/stem flex.

    All that figures in, but not in the way you're trying to make it. The frame isn't twisting enough to
    have a significant impact on vertical compliance.

    >
    > Like I said in one of my earlier posts: I'm not sure what makes a bike
    ride
    > differently from one material to another, but there's got to be something going on that isn't
    > being addressed by the "stiffness test." I would similarly bet that steel and Ti are non-linear
    > when it comes to reacting to small inputs while AL reacts fairly linearly to the same
    inputs.
    > Anyone done any studies on this? I'm willing to be convinced, but it'll take some real doing,
    > rather than just saying "I'm an engineer and that's what I say is true."
    >
    > Again, I'm no engineer, but I've ridden enough different bikes over my 15 years of riding to call
    > bullshit.

    I think it's been well-explained. What's going on is in your brain. Face
    it. I'm no engineer either but I've received scientific education and I like to think I can keep an
    objective, critical attitude about such things. More importantly, I didn't evolve my bicycling
    beliefs immersed in bicycle culture. I was just out riding.

    I have learned that fit is extremely important in the perceived ride quality (and other, see below),
    and varies easily from bike to bike. It's rare that anyone noting the difference in the ride from
    one frame material to the other has the many different bikes setup exactly, let alone differences in
    geometry, tire pressure, etc., etc. In other words, there's no objective way people can compare ride
    quality of different frame materials.

    Try this. The bike frame is a chassis. It needs to be strong, and stiff. The frame can offer no
    suspension qualities, just like the engineers and riders/drivers of motorcycles or of cars would not
    expect to get suspension and ride qualities out of the chasis. They design it into the vehicle so
    that suspension elements are separate from the function of the chasis, which is to provide a stiff,
    stable platform.

    Pneumatic tires were a development that put suspension into bicycles. If you don't believe in the
    impact of this, ride a bike without 'em. As others have pointed out, this has far greater effect on
    ride quality than anything (other than fit, but we're not talking about that exactly). Next is
    saddle flex, padded gloves, leg strength, etc. Frame "compliance" is lost in the noise.

    Robin Hubert
     
  15. Robin Hubert

    Robin Hubert Guest

    "Mike S." <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    >

    > > > The people here claiming that they can feel differences in wheels, seatposts, handlebars and
    > > > frames may not be engineers; but
    > they
    > > > do have sensitive instrumentation that they use to detect fine
    > differences
    > > > in bikes: Their own bodies. Humans are finely-honed instruments,
    whose
    > > > sensory abilities are boggling in their precision.
    > >
    > > That's nonsense, but of course it's the only rebuttal to objectivity: subjectivity. Unless your
    > > finely-honed butt is a calibrated
    accelerometer.
    > >
    > > > It really doesn't matter what arrogant engineers think. It doesn't
    > matter
    > > > what the magazines print, or what the 16-yr-old wrench at the bike
    shop
    > > > thinks. It doesn't matter how much it costs, how light it is, or what
    > it's
    > > > made of. There *are* differences in frames, wheels, cranks,
    seatposts,
    > > > saddles, and most other bike components. Are they huge differences? Perhaps not. Are they
    > > > detectable? Quite definitely.
    > >
    > > Dude, it's not a violin, it's a tubular metal truss.
    >
    > Which brings me to Stradivarius violins. They're just violins, they have
    to
    > sound just the same as every other violin. They're made from wood, and
    all
    > wood reacts the same when compressed into violin shape.

    Now you're talking. Sound is a) different and b) you're talking about sound perception, not bicycle
    ride quality. When's the last time your butt listened to a good violin solo? Also, could you (or
    anyone) pick that Strad out of the chorus?

    >
    > I just got done building a Specialized S-works 'cross frame for a friend
    of
    > mine. He rode it around the parking lot for all of several minutes. His first reaction: this bike
    > has a snappy ride. The parts (wheels/tires,
    etc.)
    > came from his donor bike, so there's no difference there. So, there's got to be SOMETHING
    > going on.
    >

    Yeah, something's going on. Just like when I get new tennis shoes, I can run faster and jump higher.

    Robin Hubert
     
  16. Robin Hubert

    Robin Hubert Guest

    "Frank Krygowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > waxxer wrote:
    > >
    > > This is great! We need to start a new thread!
    >
    > I doubt it. Clearly, you're going to remain more impressed with marketing hype than with technical
    > information. Clearly, you don't have the background necessary to evaluate technical information.
    > Clearly, anyone with education and officially recognized competence is beneath your contempt.
    >
    > I've dealt with similar people many times before. Occasionally, I've met one who can be convinced
    > to at least _try_ learning - but that's been rare. And it's not going to happen this time.
    >

    I run into them every day. Some you decide right off the bat it's not worth the trouble, like the
    old timer who just bought a high-zoot Ti bike from me, and insisted on 20mm tires. He's 6'-something
    and a good 200 lbs. I knew not to say a word. BTW, he says loves the bike, though he provided no
    critical analysis. It's no coincidence he bought the Ti because he heard the had a "more compliant"
    ride than his old steel bike.

    I see people all the time who ride on the skinniest tires possible, at the highest possible
    pressures, and complain about the harshness of the frame. Amazing.

    Robin Hubert
     
  17. Mike S.

    Mike S. Guest

    "Robin Hubert" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    >
    > "Mike S." <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > >
    >
    > > > > The people here claiming that they can feel differences in wheels, seatposts, handlebars and
    > > > > frames may not be engineers;
    but
    > > they
    > > > > do have sensitive instrumentation that they use to detect fine
    > > differences
    > > > > in bikes: Their own bodies. Humans are finely-honed instruments,
    > whose
    > > > > sensory abilities are boggling in their precision.
    > > >
    > > > That's nonsense, but of course it's the only rebuttal to objectivity: subjectivity. Unless
    > > > your finely-honed butt is a calibrated
    > accelerometer.
    > > >
    > > > > It really doesn't matter what arrogant engineers think. It doesn't
    > > matter
    > > > > what the magazines print, or what the 16-yr-old wrench at the bike
    > shop
    > > > > thinks. It doesn't matter how much it costs, how light it is, or
    what
    > > it's
    > > > > made of. There *are* differences in frames, wheels, cranks,
    > seatposts,
    > > > > saddles, and most other bike components. Are they huge differences? Perhaps not. Are they
    > > > > detectable? Quite definitely.
    > > >
    > > > Dude, it's not a violin, it's a tubular metal truss.
    > >
    > > Which brings me to Stradivarius violins. They're just violins, they
    have
    > to
    > > sound just the same as every other violin. They're made from wood, and
    > all
    > > wood reacts the same when compressed into violin shape.
    >
    > Now you're talking. Sound is a) different and b) you're talking about
    sound
    > perception, not bicycle ride quality. When's the last time your butt listened to a good violin
    > solo? Also, could you (or anyone) pick that
    Strad
    > out of the chorus?
    >
    I don't know that I could tell the difference between a Strad and any other violin, but someone can,
    otherwise they wouldn't be "the best." I saw something on the TV about trying to recreate the sound
    of a Strad. Trying to use the same kind of wood, aged the same way, same manufacturing methods,
    different sound completely. Could I hear it? Maybe if you played the two violins back to back.

    > >
    > > I just got done building a Specialized S-works 'cross frame for a friend
    > of
    > > mine. He rode it around the parking lot for all of several minutes.
    His
    > > first reaction: this bike has a snappy ride. The parts (wheels/tires,
    > etc.)
    > > came from his donor bike, so there's no difference there. So, there's
    got
    > > to be SOMETHING going on.
    > >
    >
    > Yeah, something's going on. Just like when I get new tennis shoes, I can run faster and
    > jump higher.
    >
    > Robin Hubert
     
  18. > Now you're talking. Sound is a) different and b) you're talking about
    sound
    > perception, not bicycle ride quality. When's the last time your butt listened to a good violin
    > solo? Also, could you (or anyone) pick that
    Strad
    > out of the chorus?

    Sound and vibration *are* part of ride quality. Whether you feel vibration in your arms (probably
    more sensitive than your butt?) or hear it with your ears, it's there, and is going to influence
    your feelings about ride quality.

    --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles http://www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
     
  19. Mike S.

    Mike S. Guest

    "Benjamin Weiner" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > > I looked through all the old magazines I have laying around, and couldn't find it. IIRC, it
    > > would have been about 1995, long before 'Bicycle Guide' became 'Bicyclist'. Maybe someone else
    > > archived a copy?
    >
    > According to this post it was December 1996:
    >
    >
    <http://groups.google.com/groups?q=thron+test+tubing+group:rec.bicycles.tech
    &hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=34287bcf.9179230%40nntp.erinet.com&rnum=1>
    >
    > or search rec.bicycles.tech for e.g. "thron test tubing"
    >
    > I just adopted a 1988 Cannondale with 1.75" downtube and enormous seatstays, is that one of the
    > straight gauge frames? Anyone know what the hierarchy of Cannondale models was then? This is a
    > touring frame with 46cm chainstays, it would be great for a blind test of geometry vs frame
    > material in ride comfort, except that it would be impossible to disguise.

    C-dale made three frames in '88 IIRC. I recall the "road," "criterium," and "touring" models. I
    owned the crit model. 1" diameter ovalized seat- and chainstays, huge downtube, and a steel
    fork. The difference between the road and crit models was geometry. The crit model being tighter
    and steeper.

    Mike
     
  20. Mike S.

    Mike S. Guest

    "Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > > Now you're talking. Sound is a) different and b) you're talking about
    > sound
    > > perception, not bicycle ride quality. When's the last time your butt listened to a good violin
    > > solo? Also, could you (or anyone) pick that
    > Strad
    > > out of the chorus?
    >
    > Sound and vibration *are* part of ride quality. Whether you feel
    vibration
    > in your arms (probably more sensitive than your butt?) or hear it with
    your
    > ears, it's there, and is going to influence your feelings about ride quality.
    >
    > --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles http://www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
    >
    >
    I was noticing the "buzz" in my feet and hands on the ride I just came from. I didn't notice it as
    much through my arse, it being padded by the saddle and shorts and all.

    Mike
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...