Opinions on aluminum frames?

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

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Mark Hickey

    Mark Hickey Guest

    "Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >> 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.

    Exactly. Car companies have done experiments where they change nothing but the soundproofing in the
    car, and the driver's perception of "ride quality" goes up dramatically (even though the car "rides"
    exactly the same in every way other than accoustically).

    I wired my old '72 Pinto station wagon (for those of you not in the US, the Pinto would be that car
    that you never wanted as a teenager) with a headphone jack, and would wear a set of heavy Koss full
    sealing headphones when driving distance. Not only did the stereo sound great, but it really DID
    make it seem like that little log wagon had a nice, smooth ride.

    Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame
     


  2. Peter Cole

    Peter Cole Guest

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

    You obviously know nothing about violins.

    > 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.

    It's called "new bike fever", we've all had it, most of us since we were children.
     
  3. Peter Cole

    Peter Cole Guest

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

    Actually, to detect & measure vibration, an accelerometer is exactly what you need. If you want to
    measure sound, use a microphone and a spectral analyser. If you want to rule out sound, plug your
    ears. This isn't rocket science.

    > 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.

    You're equating one of the highest art forms of our culture to butt jiggling. Have you no shame?
    Common sense?
    > >
    > > 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
     
  4. Mike S.

    Mike S. Guest

    "Peter Cole" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > "Mike S." <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > > >
    > > > 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.
    >
    > You obviously know nothing about violins.
    >

    I agree, I know nothing about violins. But they're all made with wood, so they should all sound
    alike. Translate that to bicycles: (simplified) bicycles have a diamond frame so they all ride
    alike. At least that is what people are trying to tell me. I'm trying to point out that there's
    something that isn't being explained to my satisfaction and that there IS something different about
    different bicycles other than "its the tires, stupid," or "its the saddle, stupid."

    >
    > > 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.
    >
    > It's called "new bike fever", we've all had it, most of us since we were children.
    >
    I don't think this is the case, but I may be wrong. He's got two other new bikes: a road C-dale and
    a mtn C-dale. I'm fixing to buy a Quattro Assi AL frame from a friend. I have absolutely no idea how
    a QA is "supposed" to ride. Once I pull the parts off the M4 and transfer them to the QA, I'll let
    you know my subjective opinion. Since I'm going to either 1. keep it, or 2. sell it. How the QA fits
    and rides will determine which bike to keep.
     
  5. "Mike S." <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    >
    > Just got off the bike after installing my new Flite Gel saddle.

    Suggest you dump the Gel saddle, look at Selle Italia's SLR, that saddle proves you only need 5
    grams of EVA closed cell foam to get a good ride, the Ti rails are what is absorbing the road shock.

    You just can't be sitting on gel while riding a bike.
     
  6. "Jon Isaacs" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > I might seem that way, I suggest getting a book on engineering,

    ..and there goes your career of being a good roadie. Ever notice back in our school days that the
    kids who read stuff like that went on to become overweight, saddled down with family obligations,
    and ride terrible looking steel frame bikes to work?
     
  7. "waxxer" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > All are fabulous bikes. In fact I am thinking seriously about a C-40 or
    the
    > CT1.

    I'm looking forward to seeing the special C-40 ol Ernesto is going to bring out next year for the 50
    year celebration.

    I wouldn't mind owning a C-40 in either the NL11 or TM12 paint scheme, except Ernesto refuses to get
    with it and use the mandatory integrated headset.
     
  8. "Jon Isaacs" <[email protected]> wrote in message .com...
    > Mike is aware that engineers can be fast riders. Down here in San Diego
    Shaun
    > Wallace is known both as a engineer and as a pretty fast cyclist, whether track, TT or road.
    >
    >

    Really? Then how come Josiah Ng and Scott Godfrey put the hurt on him on Tuesday nights?
     
  9. "Fabrizio Mazzoleni" <[email protected]> wrote in
    news:[email protected]:

    >
    > "waxxer" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    >> All are fabulous bikes. In fact I am thinking seriously about a C-40 or
    > the
    >> CT1.
    >
    > I'm looking forward to seeing the special C-40 ol Ernesto is going to bring out next year for the
    > 50 year celebration.
    >
    > I wouldn't mind owning a C-40 in either the NL11 or TM12 paint scheme, except Ernesto refuses to
    > get with it and use the mandatory integrated headset.
    >
    Hey Fab you have been working ths whole off season (plus half of the training one too) so what bike
    hae you bought to relplace the CAAD2 you where riding???.
     
  10. > > 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.
    >
    > You're equating one of the highest art forms of our culture to butt
    jiggling.
    > Have you no shame? Common sense?

    I think we now understand the differences between how you and I see a bicycle. For me, riding a bike
    is a near-magical experience, and to say that I appreciate what my bike can do in a way that might
    be equated to the finest of musical instruments is pretty much hitting the nail on the head. You, on
    the other hand, appear to regard a bicycle more as a tool, a component with clearly defined,
    understood and measurable specifications.

    And yes, when it comes to the magic of a bicycle (which is *not* simply a function of cost), I have
    no shame. I'm rather pleased that you would recognize that!

    > > 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.
    >
    > Actually, to detect & measure vibration, an accelerometer is exactly what
    you
    > need. If you want to measure sound, use a microphone and a spectral
    analyser.
    > If you want to rule out sound, plug your ears. This isn't rocket science.

    I'm confused. I equated sound & vibration, and the definition below, from dictionary.com, appears to
    support that. But I suppose you can learn pretty much the same thing about a vibration in the air by
    measuring the acceleration of the device that created it (say, a loudspeaker cone) or a microphone
    and spectral analyzer. Either way, plugging your ears isn't the answer, as that's just one way we
    experience sound. Or, to put it another way, it's not sound just because we can hear it with our
    ears; that just makes it a type of sound.
    1.. Vibrations transmitted through an elastic solid or a liquid or gas, with frequencies in the
    approximate range of 20 to 20,000 hertz, capable of being detected by human organs of hearing.
    2.. Transmitted vibrations of any frequency.
    3.. The sensation stimulated in the organs of hearing by such vibrations in the air or
    other medium.
    4.. Such sensations considered as a group.

    --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles http://www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
     
  11. "Mike S." wrote:
    >
    > I agree, I know nothing about violins. But they're all made with wood, so they should all sound
    > alike. Translate that to bicycles: (simplified) bicycles have a diamond frame so they all ride
    > alike. At least that is what people are trying to tell me.

    Actually, it's the "aluminum is harsh" people who are saying that. In other words, they seem to be
    claiming that, no matter the diameters, lengths, angles and shapes of the tubes, if a bike is made
    of aluminum, it will be "harsh."

    That's like saying that no matter if you made a violin shaped like a cigar box, if it's made with a
    spruce top and a maple back, it would sound exactly the same.

    Now, I do happen to know something about violins. I just spent the evening playing mine with several
    friends. And the idea that the material is the overpowering element in the design is silly.

    > I'm trying to point out that there's something that isn't being explained to my satisfaction and
    > that there IS something different about different bicycles other than "its the tires, stupid," or
    > "its the saddle, stupid."

    People who are scientifically trained learn early on to define the problem precisely.

    So, define, please: what is this "something different" that you detect? And how do you know it's not
    caused by the obvious things like frame geometry, tires, saddle, etc., rather than frame material?

    People who are scientifically trained also learn to state testable hypotheses.

    So, what mechanism do you propose for this "something different" being caused by the material in the
    frame? How can we test your idea?

    Please understand: we are _not_ saying all bikes ride the same. We've all (I assume) ridden twitchy
    racing bikes, stable touring bikes, stiff bikes, flexy bikes, etc. What we're saying is that an
    aluminum bike can be flexible or stiff, just as a steel bike or titanium bike can. And we're saying
    that the ill-defined "ride harshness" is not going to be explained by differences in deflection that
    are unmeasurable.

    Again: if you feel an aluminum frame somehow allows road irregularities to whack you in the butt,
    and if _all_ frames are essentially perfectly rigid under that sort of load, what's your theory on
    why this unmeasurable effect is, as you claim, so easily felt?

    --
    Frank Krygowski [email protected]
     
  12. B. Sanders

    B. Sanders Guest

    "Frank Krygowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > "Mike S." wrote:
    > >
    > > I agree, I know nothing about violins. But they're all made with wood,
    so
    > > they should all sound alike. Translate that to bicycles: (simplified) bicycles have a diamond
    > > frame so they all ride alike. At least that is
    what
    > > people are trying to tell me.
    >
    > Actually, it's the "aluminum is harsh" people who are saying that. In other words, they seem to be
    > claiming that, no matter the diameters, lengths, angles and shapes of the tubes, if a bike is made
    > of aluminum, it will be "harsh."

    Ok, so try to pigeonhole me, Frank. I say that *some* aluminum bikes are very harsh, others less so,
    and that engineering (which means tubing diameter, thickness, shape, etc) matters a lot in the final
    ride quality of aluminum frames.

    Of course, I also know that engineering matters quite a lot when working with any material.
    That said, by and large, most of the time, aluminum bikes are harsher-riding than steel, carbon
    or Ti bikes.

    > That's like saying that no matter if you made a violin shaped like a cigar box, if it's made with
    > a spruce top and a maple back, it would sound exactly the same.

    Which would, of course, be very stupid. And is anybody actually fulfilling this analogy that you're
    attempting to draw? Please cite examples.

    > Now, I do happen to know something about violins. I just spent the evening playing mine
    > with several friends. And the idea that the material is the overpowering element in the
    > design is silly.

    And your point is.....?

    > > I'm trying to point out that there's something that isn't being explained to my satisfaction
    > > and that there
    IS
    > > something different about different bicycles other than "its the tires, stupid," or "its the
    > > saddle, stupid."
    >
    > People who are scientifically trained learn early on to define the problem precisely.

    ...and quite often to miss details that didn't fit their original hypothesis...

    > So, define, please: what is this "something different" that you detect? And how do you know it's
    > not caused by the obvious things like frame geometry, tires, saddle, etc., rather than frame
    > material?

    I define it as "comfort". The physical manifestation of it is when I finish a long ride, and my
    contact points are either comfortable (not in pain), or they are in varying degrees of pain.

    As for the saddle, tires, etc: Interestingly enough, I find that these factors matter much less than
    the frame material. Same saddle, similar tires and pressure, similar trails, very different comfort
    levels at contact points for different frame materials.

    Also, you know as well as I do that aluminum generally requires a larger diameter tubing (read:
    harsh) to engineer a stiff and durable frame that is reasonably light. So, OK, that's definitely a
    factor. But to argue semantics is of little importance to people who want to know "how do aluminum
    bikes ride?" The answer is: "Most of them ride rather harshly, compared to Ti and steel."

    > So, what mechanism do you propose for this "something different" being caused by the material in
    > the frame? How can we test your idea?

    Ok, here's a test: Get 50 people who don't give a damn about bikes or frame materials. Have each of
    them spend several days riding an aluminum and a Ti bike with the same components, tires, saddle,
    etc. Make the rides very long - at least metric centuries. After each ride, ask the riders if
    they're in pain, and to characterize their pain on a standard pain scale (0
    = comfortable, 10 = unbearable agony).

    > Please understand: we are _not_ saying all bikes ride the same. We've all (I assume) ridden
    > twitchy racing bikes, stable touring bikes, stiff bikes, flexy bikes, etc. What we're saying is
    > that an aluminum bike can be flexible or stiff, just as a steel bike or titanium bike can. And
    > we're saying that the ill-defined "ride harshness" is not going to be explained by differences in
    > deflection that are unmeasurable.
    >
    > Again: if you feel an aluminum frame somehow allows road irregularities to whack you in the butt,
    > and if _all_ frames are essentially perfectly rigid under that sort of load, what's your theory on
    > why this unmeasurable effect is, as you claim, so easily felt?

    Again, we're really WOT here. You want to make this into a scientific test, to debunk some myth. I'm
    just trying to point out that there does seem to be some pretty strong consensus among cyclists
    about the ride characteristics of various frame materials. *That* is what people want to know when
    they go shopping - not whether or not some engineer with a chip on his shoulder can prove/disprove a
    hypothesis. They ask a simple question: Which bike is the most comfortable? I reflexively answer
    (from experience): "Titanium is the most comfortable, followed by carbon, and then steel." Which is
    fastest? I say: "Probably aluminum, then carbon." Yeah, these are huge generalizations; but most
    folks are going to fall asleep after a couple of hours listening to somebody yak about fatigue life
    and butting and multi-shaped tubing blah blah blah.

    I remember hearing about the Vitus aluminum bikes that were "like riding a noodle." I've also heard
    that some of the titanium time trial bikes are pretty harsh (huge aero downtubes). Fine. Ok. There
    are always exceptions to a rule.

    -Barry
     
  13. Peter Cole

    Peter Cole Guest

    "B. Sanders" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > You want to make this into a scientific test, to debunk some myth. I'm just trying to point out
    > that there does seem to be some pretty strong consensus among cyclists about the ride
    > characteristics of various frame materials.

    No there isn't. Some cyclists feel strongly one way, some the other, many, I'm sure, don't know what
    to believe. Both camps can't be right, material science and engineering clearly supports one, the
    other seems mostly supported by marketing departments and magazine articles.

    > *That* is what people want to know when they go shopping - not whether or not some engineer with a
    > chip on his shoulder can prove/disprove a hypothesis.

    Who's got a chip on their shoulder?

    They ask a simple question:
    > Which bike is the most comfortable? I reflexively answer (from experience): "Titanium is the most
    > comfortable, followed by carbon, and then steel." Which is fastest? I say: "Probably aluminum,
    > then carbon." Yeah, these are huge generalizations; but most folks are going to fall asleep after
    > a couple of hours listening to somebody yak about fatigue life and butting and multi-shaped tubing
    > blah blah blah.

    Yeah, don't bore people with reality, feed 'em some short, simple, and wrong ideas.

    > I remember hearing about the Vitus aluminum bikes that were "like riding a noodle." I've also
    > heard that some of the titanium time trial bikes are pretty harsh (huge aero downtubes). Fine. Ok.
    > There are always exceptions to a rule.

    If you understood engineering, you'd understand there are no exceptions to the rule, that's why
    they're called rules. All structures, all materials, play by the rules, they have to. The body of
    rules is called science. The application is called engineering. What you practice is
    self-congratulatory ignorance.
     
  14. Peter Cole

    Peter Cole Guest

    "Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    >
    > I think we now understand the differences between how you and I see a bicycle. For me, riding a
    > bike is a near-magical experience, and to say that I appreciate what my bike can do in a way that
    > might be equated to the finest of musical instruments is pretty much hitting the nail on the head.
    > You, on the other hand, appear to regard a bicycle more as a tool, a component with clearly
    > defined, understood and measurable specifications.

    Bicycles are machines, simple ones at that. People get excited about all kinds of machinery, but
    it's not mystical or magical. The human sense of hearing evolved to discriminate extremely subtle
    features in sound, a musical instrument like a violin is capable of expression over the enormous
    range of human sonic perception. Nuance and subtlety contrasted to sore butts from road bumps --
    hardly in the same league.

    >
    > I'm confused. I equated sound & vibration, and the definition below, from dictionary.com, appears
    > to support that. But I suppose you can learn pretty much the same thing about a vibration in the
    > air by measuring the acceleration of the device that created it (say, a loudspeaker cone) or a
    > microphone and spectral analyzer. Either way, plugging your ears isn't the answer, as that's just
    > one way we experience sound.

    No, it's pretty much the only way we experience sound, ask a deaf person.

    You can feel your butt jiggle without using your ears, I'll grant you that, but you're not
    "hearing" the road.
     
  15. Mark Hickey

    Mark Hickey Guest

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

    >"Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >> 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.

    >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.

    One thing that tends to not come up in this discussion is the fact that no matter WHAT frame
    material a bike has, it is NOT going to affect the "ride quality" of the front end of the bike very
    much (even if frame material DID matter).

    The fork is directly and solidly connected to the stem and then bars, but only connected to the
    frame through a couple dozen microscopic points of contact in the headset bearings. The frame
    material is in no meaningful way going to change the characteristics of any vibrations being
    transmitted up the steer tube to the stem.

    And since your hands are MUCH more sensitive to subtle sensory input than your butt, it follows
    that the any impact the frame would have on "ride quality" is again relegated to the "back seat"
    so to speak.

    Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame
     
  16. Tomp

    Tomp Guest

    archer wrote:

    Opinions on aluminum frames?

    > David Kerber An optimist says "Good morning, Lord." While a pessimist says "Good Lord, it's
    > morning".

    Aluminum frames are: cheap to manufacture, light weight, don't rust, are difficult to
    repair; you either like the ride or don't. It's your choice. Personally, I don't like the
    ride of the aluminum framed bike, they feel dead to me.
    --

    Tp

    -------- __o ----- -\<. ------ __o --- ( ) / ( ) ---- -\<. ----------------- ( ) / ( )
    ---------------------------------------------
    Ah... The Internet. Where everything you read "must be true."
     
  17. Mike S.

    Mike S. Guest

    "Fabrizio Mazzoleni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:D[email protected]...
    >
    > "Jon Isaacs" <[email protected]> wrote in message .com...
    > > Mike is aware that engineers can be fast riders. Down here in San Diego
    > Shaun
    > > Wallace is known both as a engineer and as a pretty fast cyclist,
    whether
    > > track, TT or road.
    > >
    > >
    >
    > Really? Then how come Josiah Ng and Scott Godfrey put the hurt on him on Tuesday nights?
    >
    >

    Actually, mostly its the other way around. Scott can't sprint to save his life, all he does is try
    to TT OTF. If that doesn't work, he's OTB. Josiah can be up there: he's been training like a madman,
    but the longer races aren't his forte.
     
  18. Mike S.

    Mike S. Guest

    "Peter Cole" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:rJ%[email protected]...
    > "B. Sanders" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > You want to make this into a scientific test, to debunk some myth. I'm just trying to point out
    > > that there does seem
    to
    > > be some pretty strong consensus among cyclists about the ride characteristics of various frame
    > > materials.
    >
    > No there isn't. Some cyclists feel strongly one way, some the other, many,
    I'm
    > sure, don't know what to believe. Both camps can't be right, material
    science
    > and engineering clearly supports one, the other seems mostly supported by marketing departments
    > and magazine articles.
    >
    > > *That* is what people want to know when they go shopping - not whether or not some engineer
    > > with a
    chip on
    > > his shoulder can prove/disprove a hypothesis.
    >
    > Who's got a chip on their shoulder?
    >
    > They ask a simple question:
    > > Which bike is the most comfortable? I reflexively answer (from
    experience):
    > > "Titanium is the most comfortable, followed by carbon, and then steel." Which is fastest? I say:
    > > "Probably aluminum, then carbon." Yeah,
    these
    > > are huge generalizations; but most folks are going to fall asleep after
    a
    > > couple of hours listening to somebody yak about fatigue life and butting
    and
    > > multi-shaped tubing blah blah blah.
    >
    > Yeah, don't bore people with reality, feed 'em some short, simple, and
    wrong
    > ideas.

    How can you sit there and tell me that the shape/diameter of a tube doesn't affect its ride? If a 1"
    tube is x stiff, a 2" tube is 8x stiffer, that won't affect ride quality? If the material used to
    make the frame requires that a 2" downtube is used to make the bike last long enough under every
    conceivable condition, it is going to ride differently than a 1.125" diameter tube of another
    material. Maybe that's where the discussion is going wrong...
    >
    > > I remember hearing about the Vitus aluminum bikes that were "like riding
    a
    > > noodle." I've also heard that some of the titanium time trial bikes are pretty harsh (huge aero
    > > downtubes). Fine. Ok. There are always
    exceptions
    > > to a rule.
    >
    > If you understood engineering, you'd understand there are no exceptions to
    the
    > rule, that's why they're called rules. All structures, all materials, play
    by
    > the rules, they have to. The body of rules is called science. The
    application
    > is called engineering. What you practice is self-congratulatory ignorance.
    >
    >
    What was that about engineers with a chip on the shoulder?? "Self-congratulatory ignorance?" now
    we're resorting to calling people names?? Well, my dad can beat up your dad! Hah, take that!
     
  19. Mark Hickey

    Mark Hickey Guest

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

    >How can you sit there and tell me that the shape/diameter of a tube doesn't affect its ride? If a
    >1" tube is x stiff, a 2" tube is 8x stiffer, that won't affect ride quality? If the material used
    >to make the frame requires that a 2" downtube is used to make the bike last long enough under every
    >conceivable condition, it is going to ride differently than a 1.125" diameter tube of another
    >material. Maybe that's where the discussion is going wrong...

    It's 8x stiffer laterally, not on-axis.

    If you had two tubes - one 1/2" OD and the other 1" OD, but made from the same material and using
    the same amount of material (the thinner tube has thicker walls).

    If you capped each end with a very stiff steel cap, you couldn't tell the difference between the
    performance between the two if you used them between a hammer and a nail - they'd both transmit the
    same amount of impact, even though one would make a much better flagpole than the other.

    Those seat stays are the tubes that transmit energy from the road to the rider - no other tube has
    much impact (pun intended) on the "ride quality". They're in compression, and simply can't do
    anything other than couple the hub directly to the seat tube / top tube / seat stay cluster.

    >> > I remember hearing about the Vitus aluminum bikes that were "like riding
    >a
    >> > noodle." I've also heard that some of the titanium time trial bikes are pretty harsh (huge aero
    >> > downtubes). Fine. Ok. There are always
    >exceptions
    >> > to a rule.
    >>
    >> If you understood engineering, you'd understand there are no exceptions to
    >the
    >> rule, that's why they're called rules. All structures, all materials, play
    >by
    >> the rules, they have to. The body of rules is called science. The
    >application
    >> is called engineering. What you practice is self-congratulatory ignorance.

    >What was that about engineers with a chip on the shoulder?? "Self-congratulatory ignorance?" now
    >we're resorting to calling people names?? Well, my dad can beat up your dad! Hah, take that!

    He was differentiating between "common belief" and "rules", and he's right. You can predict with
    great accuracy how a given material will react in a given situation.

    Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame
     
  20. helen

    helen Guest

    In article <m52da.2035$2%[email protected]>, Mike Jacoubowsky
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >
    >
    > By the way, please point out to me where people have *measured* the differences in sound between
    > an ordinary violin and a Stradivarius. I'd be very interested in the analysis.
    >

    Mike,

    they're out there. There are some japanes pages with spectrum analysis and sound files. I tried to
    google them up for you but they didn't come up easily. The Strad magazine has run a whole series
    with measurements of various violins including strads concentratiing on how the distribution of
    thickness on the tops and backs affect the overall tonality of instrument as a whole.

    More pertinent and interesting to the topic at hand is that in blind testing behind screens many
    top notch professional players had a hard time picking out their own instruments as well as not
    being able to discern old vs. new instruments. Many top professional string players are now
    choosing instruments made by modern master builders over older Italian instruments--Yo Yo Ma being
    one of them.

    Sorry I couldn't give you some solid citations. I'll ask for that japanese site at a cello forum I
    hang out on. If and when I get it I pass it along here.

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