R
RonSonic
Guest
On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 08:54:59 -0600, Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
> jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> how was i able to sniff out your desire to try picking a fight tim?
>> when you're ready to talk engineering [which you're clearly not right
>> now] get back to me. otherwise, you know what you can do. byeee!
>
>jim, jim, jim. Quell your paranoia. There's no attempt to pick a fight
>here. What you posted made no sense to me and appeared to be self
>contradictory, and I asked for clarification. However, to the
>adversarial person everyone looks like an adversary.
>
>Bicycle frames have no significant vertical flex, which is what would
>typically be discussed in terms of ride feel.
Why do you say that?
In fact, why do so many of these discussions get stupid over someone's theory or
lack of a theory.
There is no reason on earth for you to think that vertical fles would be the
thing discussed in terms of ride feel. Of course there's little vertical flex in
classic bike frame, everybody here knows that, so for some reason that's what
you want to talk about.
My present GT mountain bike is a buzzing PITA on pavement. My previous bike,
built with entirely the same parts, including tires, was not. The one before
that was downright smooth. None of these frames had any significant vertical
flex, of course.
How about a new theory - since we all agree that vertical flex isn't a factor.
Ron
>Geometry, specifically wheelbase and front and rear centers, are the
>primary frame qualities that affect road feel, along with tire inflation
>being probably a larger contributor. Invariably the bikes I hear of
>being described as "harsh" have a short rear center and rock hard 700 x
>23 tires. Material has little if anything to do with it, as comparing a
>Cannondale CAAD-whatever with a Vitus 979 will show. As I recall, you
>have pointed out all of those things yourself in the past.
>
>Pretty hard to pick a fight with you when we seem to be in agreement.
>
>You have typically been interested in lateral forces on wheels and such,
>so perhaps this is what are are referring to. Bike frames do have some
>lateral flex, since they are not triangulated in the direction, except
>in the case of the Dursley-Pedersen and Moulton designs. Whether that
>flex is significant is of some debate. If bike frames are springs and
>have no damping and return all of their energy, then it follows that
>lateral flex is not significant in terms of pedaling efficiency. There
>is, of course, also the issue of lateral flex in shimmy.
>
>Now, if you want to propose that lateral flex affects how a bike feels
>to ride, I'd have to ponder that. I haven't noticed it myself (except
>in shimmy-prone bikes), but I do know of some people who think this is
>the case and they are not prone to being crazy. Some find more
>laterally rigid frames better to ride, some find more flexible frames
>better to ride. So, while I haven't noticed that lateral flex makes a
>difference I guess that doesn't mean that there are not more sensitive
>people who do.
>
>It's too bad that you are so adversarial that you see everything as a
>fight. When I disagree with you, you'll know it. I'll put it in no
>uncertain terms and you won't have to sniff anything out.
>In article <[email protected]>,
> jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> how was i able to sniff out your desire to try picking a fight tim?
>> when you're ready to talk engineering [which you're clearly not right
>> now] get back to me. otherwise, you know what you can do. byeee!
>
>jim, jim, jim. Quell your paranoia. There's no attempt to pick a fight
>here. What you posted made no sense to me and appeared to be self
>contradictory, and I asked for clarification. However, to the
>adversarial person everyone looks like an adversary.
>
>Bicycle frames have no significant vertical flex, which is what would
>typically be discussed in terms of ride feel.
Why do you say that?
In fact, why do so many of these discussions get stupid over someone's theory or
lack of a theory.
There is no reason on earth for you to think that vertical fles would be the
thing discussed in terms of ride feel. Of course there's little vertical flex in
classic bike frame, everybody here knows that, so for some reason that's what
you want to talk about.
My present GT mountain bike is a buzzing PITA on pavement. My previous bike,
built with entirely the same parts, including tires, was not. The one before
that was downright smooth. None of these frames had any significant vertical
flex, of course.
How about a new theory - since we all agree that vertical flex isn't a factor.
Ron
>Geometry, specifically wheelbase and front and rear centers, are the
>primary frame qualities that affect road feel, along with tire inflation
>being probably a larger contributor. Invariably the bikes I hear of
>being described as "harsh" have a short rear center and rock hard 700 x
>23 tires. Material has little if anything to do with it, as comparing a
>Cannondale CAAD-whatever with a Vitus 979 will show. As I recall, you
>have pointed out all of those things yourself in the past.
>
>Pretty hard to pick a fight with you when we seem to be in agreement.
>
>You have typically been interested in lateral forces on wheels and such,
>so perhaps this is what are are referring to. Bike frames do have some
>lateral flex, since they are not triangulated in the direction, except
>in the case of the Dursley-Pedersen and Moulton designs. Whether that
>flex is significant is of some debate. If bike frames are springs and
>have no damping and return all of their energy, then it follows that
>lateral flex is not significant in terms of pedaling efficiency. There
>is, of course, also the issue of lateral flex in shimmy.
>
>Now, if you want to propose that lateral flex affects how a bike feels
>to ride, I'd have to ponder that. I haven't noticed it myself (except
>in shimmy-prone bikes), but I do know of some people who think this is
>the case and they are not prone to being crazy. Some find more
>laterally rigid frames better to ride, some find more flexible frames
>better to ride. So, while I haven't noticed that lateral flex makes a
>difference I guess that doesn't mean that there are not more sensitive
>people who do.
>
>It's too bad that you are so adversarial that you see everything as a
>fight. When I disagree with you, you'll know it. I'll put it in no
>uncertain terms and you won't have to sniff anything out.