Re: Carbon Fiber Seat Stays = Better Ride?

Discussion in 'Road Cycling' started by Donald Gillies, Apr 12, 2005.

  1. Steve Sr. <[email protected]> writes:

    >I have seen carbon fiber seat stays being advertized as improving the
    >"comfort" and the ride "quality" of a bike. Serotta even goes so far
    >as putting a bearing at the dropout end on their high end bikes to
    >allow the seat stays to flex and act as springs to soften the ride. Or
    >at least this is what is claimed. Other manufacturers make similar
    >claims.


    I think this is just B.S., but you have to find out for yourself. Go
    to a dealer and ride one of these heavy beasts. Hint: Next Year Your
    Bike Dealer Will Be Touting The Lightness Of All-Aluminum Framesets!

    A carbon rear triangle probably beats a frame made entirely of
    aluminum, but maybe not by more than the addition of 2mm of rubber on
    your rear tire.

    I liked my 1998 TREK 2300, which had 3 main tubes of carbon fiber. No
    carbon fiber in the rear aluminum triangle, but it had outstanding
    compliance, which is probably what allowed TREK to sell the same
    frameset for 8 years, unchanged. That's gotta be a record with these
    hi-tech framesets. Mine split at the seat lug - how did YOU break
    your TREK frame THIS MONTH ?!?!

    I think that vibration absorption on the front end is proably more
    important than on the rear because the front end of the bike has less
    load and is therefore less damped and will therefore vibrate more
    easily and for longer periods on a rough road surface with your 160
    psi rock-hard tires.

    Just my 2c.

    - Don Gillies
    San Diego, CA
     
    Tags:


  2. Jay K

    Jay K Guest

    Don't think that carbon seatstays matter that much.

    Re "backside" comfort only, my 853 steel bike is seemingly more
    comfortable than my Litespeed Siena with carbon seat stays. But the
    Litespeed tracks better, so more comfortable going downhills. This
    probably has nothing to do with the carbon seatstays, but just pointing
    out numerous measures of comfort on a bike.

    My wife has a alumnium Klein with carbon seatstays, and she says it is
    both more comfortable and tracks better than her old Trek 5000-all
    carbon frame.

    At the other end I didn't get the Litespeed Real Design fork that came
    with the bike, as it has a harsh reputation and I ride with two
    Litespeed owners who replaced it. I replaced it with Reynolds Ozou and
    very happy with it--same of less amount of road noise comes through the
    front end (top of bars double tape) as on 853 w Kestral fork.

    Good luck
    j
     
  3. PanFan

    PanFan Guest

    Over 200 posts and nobody got it right.

    First of all, the empirical evidence is right under your nose. There should
    be no disputing the fact that the carbon fork is a major advancement in
    bicycling comfort. The reduction in high frequency road buzz when comparing
    CF forks to metal forks is significant. Anyone who disputes that is just a
    steel or titanium or aluminum romanticist.

    Lots of bad physics and bad mech engineering in this thread. You don't need
    member compression or flexure to get vibration damping. See above. How much
    do you think your CF fork compresses or flexes to give you that buttery
    ride? Very, very little. The high-end vibrations are damped by the resin
    and cloth itself because the molecular structure is completely different
    than that of metal. Posters who insist on flex or compression are confusing
    vibration damping with shock absorption. Two different things.

    Empirical evidence #2: tap a steel tube or a Ti tube or an Al tube with a
    wrench. Ding! Rings like a bell. Repeat with a carbon tube. Thunk.
    Convinced yet?

    Therefore, there is no doubt carbon seat stays will absorb high frequency
    vibrations much more than metal seat stays.

    What is open to discussion is whether or not there is enough road buzz in
    your seat stays to make damping noticeable. I suspect you can achieve the
    same result by using a carbon seat post instead. Just isolate the body from
    the vibrating metal stuff.
     
  4. Peter Cole

    Peter Cole Guest

    PanFan wrote:
    > Over 200 posts and nobody got it right.
    >
    > What is open to discussion is whether or not there is enough road

    buzz in
    > your seat stays to make damping noticeable.


    Well, Duh.
     
  5. PanFan wrote:
    > Over 200 posts and nobody got it right.


    In your humble opinion?

    > First of all, the empirical evidence is right under your nose. There

    should
    > be no disputing the fact that the carbon fork is a major advancement

    in
    > bicycling comfort.


    In your humble opinion?

    Also, why not stick to the subject? We're talking about seat stays.
    Forks belong in a different thread, if only because the geometry of a
    fork is so different.

    > Lots of bad physics and bad mech engineering in this thread. You

    don't need
    > member compression or flexure to get vibration damping. See above.


    I'd be very interested in your physics and engineering credentials.
    I'd also be very interested in your explanation of the conservation of
    energy principle and how it relates to damping vibration without using
    deflection. As an engineer, I tend to believe that the mechanical
    energy of vibration can't be destroyed, but only converted into heat;
    and that to do so, forces of internal friction must do negative work;
    and that to do work, force must be applied through a displacement. But
    that's just me and those stubborn laws of physics!

    Posters who insist on flex or compression are confusing
    > vibration damping with shock absorption. Two different things.


    Can you give me a practical industrial application where vibration is
    absorbed without deflection? Obviously, we know tires absorb road
    vibration, and they do it by flexing. We know old-style saddles with
    coil springs absorb vibration, and they do it when the springs deflect.
    We know resilient machinery mounts absorb vibration by being resilient
    - by flexing. We know your car's engine mounts isolate a large portion
    of the engine's vibrations - by being made of flexible rubber, and
    flexing.

    Examples are legion. Give us some practical examples where people use
    rigid objects to significantly absorb vibration - if you can find any.

    > Empirical evidence #2: tap a steel tube or a Ti tube or an Al tube

    with a
    > wrench. Ding! Rings like a bell. Repeat with a carbon tube. Thunk.
    > Convinced yet?


    Hardly. As explained in one of the 200 posts, the "rings like a bell"
    you refer to is a sound in the audible range of frequencies - like the
    standard musical note "A" at 440 cycles per second. I'd agree that
    carbon fiber seat stays have a natural frequency of vibration that
    could be used to attenuate similar frequencies. The problem for you
    is, tires suspending a bike and rider have such a low natural frequency
    that they can't transmit those audible tones to any meaningful degree.
    The seat stay never receives a frequency it's capable of damping.

    In other words, when you can tap a tire and hear a seat stay "ring like
    a bell" you'll have an argument. Until then, you're throwing us a red
    herring.

    > What is open to discussion is whether or not there is enough road

    buzz in
    > your seat stays to make damping noticeable.


    That's not open to discussion if you're a person who understands the
    physics. Again, the frequencies carbon fiber seat stays could damp
    never make it to the seatstays.


    I suspect you can achieve the
    > same result by using a carbon seat post instead. Just isolate the

    body from
    > the vibrating metal stuff.


    Good idea, in that a carbon fiber seat post might make much more sense.
    But I must point out that it might make sense largely because the
    natural frequency of the seat post supporting the rider's mass is quite
    low, probably similar to that of the tire supporting the bike.

    - Frank Krygowski
     
  6. Dane Jackson

    Dane Jackson Guest

    [email protected] wrote:
    > PanFan wrote:
    >
    >> Posters who insist on flex or compression are confusing
    >> vibration damping with shock absorption. Two different things.

    >
    > Can you give me a practical industrial application where vibration is
    > absorbed without deflection? Obviously, we know tires absorb road
    > vibration, and they do it by flexing. We know old-style saddles with
    > coil springs absorb vibration, and they do it when the springs deflect.
    > We know resilient machinery mounts absorb vibration by being resilient
    > - by flexing. We know your car's engine mounts isolate a large portion
    > of the engine's vibrations - by being made of flexible rubber, and
    > flexing.
    >
    > Examples are legion. Give us some practical examples where people use
    > rigid objects to significantly absorb vibration - if you can find any.


    This *almost* qualifies, but this is such a special case there is no
    way this can be argued to be occuring in bike seats. K2 designed some
    skis that use piezoelectric generation to damp vibration.

    http://illumin.usc.edu/article.php?articleID=56&page=3

    I suppose one could engineer some bike rails like this, but I think
    I'd rather save my cash and buy a 1mm large tire.

    --
    Dane Jackson - z u v e m b i @ u n i x b i g o t s . o r g
    "In America sex is an obsession, in other parts of the world it
    is a fact." -Marlene Dietrich
     
  7. Mark Hickey

    Mark Hickey Guest

    PanFan <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Over 200 posts and nobody got it right.

    <snip hand-waving suppositions>
    >Therefore, there is no doubt carbon seat stays will absorb high frequency
    >vibrations much more than metal seat stays.


    Well, here's your chance... all you have to do is tell us how a carbon
    fiber seat stay "aborbs" high-frequency vibrations". What "molecular
    level" process goes on, and how much of what frequency range is
    absorbed in a foot of very, very stiff carbon fiber stay.

    If you thump an aluminum tube, it's "deader" than steel, but the
    voodoo reality claims that it's still "harsher".

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

    Werehatrack Guest

    On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 15:54:53 GMT, PanFan <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Over 200 posts and nobody got it right.


    You offer no proof that any of your assertions have any relevance to
    the topic you further assert is central.

    First, you must prove that the CF tube damps vibrations that are
    ordinarily present in a bicycle frame, by providing measurements of
    some typical actual results. Not hyperbole, measurement.

    Then prove that those same vibrations both (a) exist in significant
    quantity in the seat/rider and shoe/foot interfaces of a non-CF bike
    system, (b) are reduced in a CF-tube-stay-bike system, and (c) are a
    measurable factor in rider discomfort, stress or organic damage. (Any
    one of the latter three will be adequate, but two would be more
    convincing.)

    I will openly wager one US dollar (and the ability to completely
    eliminate all but CF bikes from serious consideration by the majority
    of high-mileage riders) as the prize for meeting the above challenge.

    Metal-frame bikes remain plentiful on the market for two reasons.
    Price is only one of them. A good many serious riders who have no
    pressing need for light weight rides and whose choices are driven by
    experience rather than marketing and handwaving have found that the
    extra expense of CF brings no benefit. If the effect of CF's usage
    were so significant, I submit that aluminum, titanium and steel would
    be vanishing from the enthusiast market, and the benefit of CF would
    be both readily recognized and widely demonstrated by actual test
    results. I am *quite* sure that those tests have already been done,
    by the way...and that the reason the numbers aren't a matter of public
    record is that they demonstrate that CF's vibration-damping qualities
    have no effect on rider comfort or health. If they demonstrated the
    reverse, the data would be in full-page ads in every cycling magazine
    on the planet. When was the last time a marketing division of a
    for-profit entity let such a golden opportunity slip by? The fact
    that there are no numbers tells me that the numbers say such claims
    are false.


    --
    Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
    Some gardening required to reply via email.
    Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.
     
  9. Sandy

    Sandy Guest

    Dans le message de news:[email protected],
    Werehatrack <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
    > On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 15:54:53 GMT, PanFan <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >> Over 200 posts and nobody got it right.

    >
    > You offer no proof that any of your assertions have any relevance to
    > the topic you further assert is central.
    >
    > First, you must prove that the CF tube damps vibrations that are
    > ordinarily present in a bicycle frame, by providing measurements of
    > some typical actual results. Not hyperbole, measurement.


    Back again ...

    From what I have read, Engineers have stated (I think I am summarizing
    fairly), that the seat stay, or other component tube of the main bicycle
    frame does not transmit shock or vibration to a greater or lesser extent
    when substituting CF for metal, because it is a brige truss structure.

    I offer my experience on metal. I owned, for a bunch of years, a Cannondale
    SR400, and after that (not immediately) a Vitus 992. Both aluminum. My
    memories are of two radically different frames, (using both the same
    wheelset and, for the most part, tires), that were worlds apart in terms of
    ride quality, comfort, and vibration and road buzz attenuation. Why is that
    ? Am I just getting too old, and my memory is no longer valid ?
    Seriously...
    --
    Bonne route,

    Sandy
    Verneuil-sur-Seine FR
     
  10. Peter Cole

    Peter Cole Guest

    "Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >
    > I offer my experience on metal. I owned, for a bunch of years, a

    Cannondale
    > SR400, and after that (not immediately) a Vitus 992. Both aluminum. My
    > memories are of two radically different frames, (using both the same
    > wheelset and, for the most part, tires), that were worlds apart in terms

    of
    > ride quality, comfort, and vibration and road buzz attenuation. Why is

    that
    > ? Am I just getting too old, and my memory is no longer valid ?
    > Seriously...


    My experience is that I have 3 road bikes, one a Cannondale with very big
    tubes, the other 2 are Fuji's, one 20 years old, lugged steel, the other
    modern welded steel. They all have pretty much the same wheels and tires.
    The harshest ride is the old Fuji, the new Fuji the softest, and the
    Cannondale in the middle. The reason is that the old Fuji has the hardest
    saddle, the Cannondale a slightly softer one, and the new Fuji softer yet.
    I doubt I could tell the difference if they all had the same saddles.
    Subjective impressions aren't trustworthy, that's why double blind
    experiments are the standard.
     
  11. Werehatrack

    Werehatrack Guest

    On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 17:09:56 -0400, "Peter Cole"
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >"Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >>
    >> I offer my experience on metal. I owned, for a bunch of years, a

    >Cannondale
    >> SR400, and after that (not immediately) a Vitus 992. Both aluminum. My
    >> memories are of two radically different frames, (using both the same
    >> wheelset and, for the most part, tires), that were worlds apart in terms

    >of
    >> ride quality, comfort, and vibration and road buzz attenuation. Why is

    >that
    >> ? Am I just getting too old, and my memory is no longer valid ?
    >> Seriously...

    >
    >My experience is that I have 3 road bikes, one a Cannondale with very big
    >tubes, the other 2 are Fuji's, one 20 years old, lugged steel, the other
    >modern welded steel. They all have pretty much the same wheels and tires.
    >The harshest ride is the old Fuji, the new Fuji the softest, and the
    >Cannondale in the middle. The reason is that the old Fuji has the hardest
    >saddle, the Cannondale a slightly softer one, and the new Fuji softer yet.
    >I doubt I could tell the difference if they all had the same saddles.
    >Subjective impressions aren't trustworthy, that's why double blind
    >experiments are the standard.


    Yes, the seat has a lot to do with it, and so do a myriad of other
    factors. The most persuasive (to me) argument that I have seen
    *against* there being any difference of the type claimed in this
    thread and the other is that the types of vibrations that might be
    damped by CF material would all be high-frequency ones well up into
    the audible range, none of which would have any significant amplitude,
    none of which would be transmissible through the tire from the road
    without huge losses, and none of which would be of anything
    approaching the amplitude of the normal nonharmonic road buzz that is
    generated by surface irregularities in the paving. As such, what they
    might damp wouldn't matter and probably isn't present, and what they
    can't damp is what's present.

    When comparing two bikes, one must take into account *all* variations
    between them, not just the frame material, when attempting to quantify
    differences in the results. (I believe that's precisely what you were
    getting at.)
    --
    Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
    Some gardening required to reply via email.
    Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.
     
  12. Sandy

    Sandy Guest

    Dans le message de news:[email protected],
    Peter Cole <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a
    déclaré :
    > "Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >>
    >> I offer my experience on metal. I owned, for a bunch of years, a
    >> Cannondale SR400, and after that (not immediately) a Vitus 992.
    >> Both aluminum. My memories are of two radically different frames,
    >> (using both the same wheelset and, for the most part, tires), that
    >> were worlds apart in terms of ride quality, comfort, and vibration
    >> and road buzz attenuation. Why is that ? Am I just getting too
    >> old, and my memory is no longer valid ? Seriously...

    >
    > My experience is that I have 3 road bikes, one a Cannondale with very
    > big tubes, the other 2 are Fuji's, one 20 years old, lugged steel,
    > the other modern welded steel. They all have pretty much the same
    > wheels and tires. The harshest ride is the old Fuji, the new Fuji the
    > softest, and the Cannondale in the middle. The reason is that the old
    > Fuji has the hardest saddle, the Cannondale a slightly softer one,
    > and the new Fuji softer yet. I doubt I could tell the difference if
    > they all had the same saddles. Subjective impressions aren't
    > trustworthy, that's why double blind experiments are the standard.


    Sorry, Peter, the same saddle, the original Concor. I am loathe to part
    with a saddle I like, and I had one for 8 years, and had another replace it
    for another 5. You could be really helpful, if you could direct me to a new
    one, not the light Concor, as I tried it, and t'aint the same animal.
    --
    Bonne route,

    Sandy
    Verneuil-sur-Seine FR
     
  13. Sandy wrote:
    >
    >
    > I offer my experience on metal. I owned, for a bunch of years, a

    Cannondale
    > SR400, and after that (not immediately) a Vitus 992. Both aluminum.

    My
    > memories are of two radically different frames, (using both the same
    > wheelset and, for the most part, tires), that were worlds apart in

    terms of
    > ride quality, comfort, and vibration and road buzz attenuation. Why

    is that
    > ? Am I just getting too old, and my memory is no longer valid ?
    > Seriously...


    Seriously, at least three factors are probably at work here. One may
    be the details of equipment (were the tires _exactly_ the same?) and
    frame geometry (was the wheelbase _exactly_ the same?) etc.

    Another might be differences in what you expected. One poster noted
    that when Cannondales first came out, Americans were told they would be
    "harsh" while Eurpeans were told they would be "flexible" and by gosh,
    that's exactly what the expert road testers reported - simultaneously!

    A third factor really might be the accuracy of your memory - and I say
    that only because the differences in ride quality, if any, are likely
    to be quite subtle. When comparison tasting wines, one never tries one
    glass on Tuesday, the next glass on the following Monday. The memory
    of Tuesday's would not be accurate. When comparison rating bicycle
    rides, it should be done simultaneously, and for best accuracy, with no
    knowledge of which bike is which, to remove pre-conceived notions.

    Perception of bike "ride quality" is affected by lots of things. As an
    example, I have a folding bike I bought used, very inexpensively. I
    bought it despite the bad ride quality and the squeaks and rattles.
    But one day I painstakingly tracked down and fixed all the rattles and
    squeaks, and darned if the "ride quality" didn't improve "noticeably."
    By the same token, your rough-riding bike may have had a seat bag that
    squeaked when you hit a bump. That would be quite enough to affect
    your perceptions.

    - Frank Krygowski
     
  14. Sandy

    Sandy Guest

    Dans le message de
    news:[email protected],
    [email protected] <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
    > Sandy wrote:
    >>
    >> I offer my experience on metal. I owned, for a bunch of years, a
    >> Cannondale SR400, and after that (not immediately) a Vitus 992.
    >> Both aluminum. My memories are of two radically different frames,
    >> (using both the same wheelset and, for the most part, tires), that
    >> were worlds apart in terms of ride quality, comfort, and vibration
    >> and road buzz attenuation. Why is that ? Am I just getting too
    >> old, and my memory is no longer valid ? Seriously...

    >
    > Seriously, at least three factors are probably at work here. One may
    > be the details of equipment (were the tires _exactly_ the same?) and
    > frame geometry (was the wheelbase _exactly_ the same?) etc.


    Seriously, you have gone beyond the realm of believable. But, just to pique
    your interest, the tires were Michelin BiSynergic, and they were replaced
    when worn. Did you really expect different ? The wheelbase wasn't the
    same, but I really fail to see the relevance, since your comments indicate
    that the sensation of vibration and shock are infinitessimally small, thus,
    not perceptible. So, how could wheelbase and geometry affect vibration
    transmission - teach me. The geometry of the Vitus was so awful, that I
    decided within a couple of weeks that I would be replacing the frame.
    Comfort, on that bike, was treacherous. As I recall, you, yourself, posted
    about a Vitus, no ? And your "_exactly_" is the gasp of desperation.

    > Another might be differences in what you expected. One poster noted
    > that when Cannondales first came out, Americans were told they would
    > be "harsh" while Eurpeans were told they would be "flexible" and by
    > gosh, that's exactly what the expert road testers reported -
    > simultaneously!


    Frank, you miscontrue just about everything. Mine was not a test - it was
    long-term experience. After 6-7 years on a Cannondale, and less than 3 on
    the Vitus, I think I had no "expectations". Rather, there were thousands of
    kilometres of experience, all perceived by a single body. I have also
    *never* heard a C'dale referred to, here, as flexible - never. I would ask
    Mark Hickey to provide some reference to that reference. The newer ones are
    reviewed as surprisingly comfortable in comparison to older models, which
    were the real bouts de bois - a metaphor that would probably astound you.

    > A third factor really might be the accuracy of your memory - and I say
    > that only because the differences in ride quality, if any, are likely
    > to be quite subtle.


    You don't ride, do you !? Subtle ?

    > When comparison tasting wines, one never tries
    > one glass on Tuesday, the next glass on the following Monday. The
    > memory of Tuesday's would not be accurate.


    Walking on thin ice here, Franck...

    > When comparison rating
    > bicycle rides, it should be done simultaneously,


    I would like to know how to do this "simultaneously". Or are you hampered
    by reality ?

    > and for best
    > accuracy, with no knowledge of which bike is which, to remove
    > pre-conceived notions.


    You don't ride at all ???!!!

    > Perception of bike "ride quality" is affected by lots of things. As
    > an example, I have a folding bike I bought used, very inexpensively.
    > I bought it despite the bad ride quality and the squeaks and rattles.
    > But one day I painstakingly tracked down and fixed all the rattles and
    > squeaks, and darned if the "ride quality" didn't improve "noticeably."
    > By the same token, your rough-riding bike may have had a seat bag that
    > squeaked when you hit a bump. That would be quite enough to affect
    > your perceptions.


    Nonsense, Franck. Stick to Engineering, not psychology. Your choice of
    bike and subjective ineptness is not a beacon for others to follow. While I
    will not doubt whatever credentials you posted as an Engineer, your
    credentials as a rider are in more than serious doubt.


    --
    Bonne route,

    Sandy
    Verneuil-sur-Seine FR
     
  15. Quoting Sandy <[email protected]>:
    >Frank Krygowski:
    >>Seriously, at least three factors are probably at work here. One may
    >>be the details of equipment (were the tires _exactly_ the same?) and
    >>frame geometry (was the wheelbase _exactly_ the same?) etc.

    >Seriously, you have gone beyond the realm of believable. But, just to pique
    >your interest, the tires were Michelin BiSynergic, and they were replaced
    >when worn. Did you really expect different ? The wheelbase wasn't the
    >same, but I really fail to see the relevance, since your comments indicate
    >that the sensation of vibration and shock are infinitessimally small,


    Well, no, they don't. They indicate that vibration of the frequency that
    might be damped by CF is extremely small, not all shock and buzz. If the
    relative fore-aft position of the saddle and rear wheel was different that
    explains a difference in ride quality right there, just as the ride on the
    front seat of a steel tandem with an intentionally very rigid frame is
    still very comfortable.

    >>When comparison rating
    >>bicycle rides, it should be done simultaneously,

    >I would like to know how to do this "simultaneously".


    It may well be impossible to carry out a good test. That does not mean you
    can substitute a bad test and have the results be meaningful.
    --
    David Damerell <[email protected]> flcl?
    Today is Teleute, May.
     
  16. On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 13:44:25 +0200, "Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Back to the issue of ride quality - whether it can be perceived by riders,
    >when it does not appear feasible to model, mathematically. I am not writing
    >about golf putters, where each one is magical.


    LOL! You're providing a very good imitation of doing so!

    Guy
    --
    May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
    http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

    88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
     
  17. Mark Hickey

    Mark Hickey Guest

    "Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Back to the issue of ride quality - whether it can be perceived by riders,
    >when it does not appear feasible to model, mathematically. I am not writing
    >about golf putters, where each one is magical.


    But the same voodoo isn't when applied to axially loading a tube on a
    bicycle?

    > The saddle should not be an
    >issue, as the Engineer has stated that vibration does not make it through
    >the frame, and I believe that the saddle is on the distant end of the frame
    >from the tires. So saddles are out of play. Frankly, I think saddles are
    >comfortable or not for an individual if the constant pressure of the body on
    >them causes pain or not. I don't think they add to road (shock and
    >vibration related) comfort, but can subtract from sitting comfort. Springs
    >or none.


    WAIT a minute... you think sub-mm flex in an axially-loaded tube is so
    significant that you denigrate those who say they can't feel it, and
    THEN say that a saddle doesn't have any effect on ride quality, even
    though it's suspended on long, thin flexible rods, built like a
    virtual hammock, and covered with padding?

    You're either trolling or operating in an entirely different physical
    universe than the rest of us apparently. Seriously - read what you
    wrote above and hopefully the nonsensical nature of your position will
    become apparent.

    If not, you can believe what you wanna believe. If you can logically
    reach the conclusion you typed above I don't think it's likely that
    we're going to be able to turn your opinion based on logic.
    Seriously.

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

    Sandy Guest

    Dans le message de news:eek:[email protected],
    Mark Hickey <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
    > "Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote:


    >> The saddle should not be an
    >> issue, as the Engineer has stated that vibration does not make it
    >> through the frame, and I believe that the saddle is on the distant
    >> end of the frame from the tires. So saddles are out of play.
    >> Frankly, I think saddles are comfortable or not for an individual if
    >> the constant pressure of the body on them causes pain or not. I
    >> don't think they add to road (shock and vibration related) comfort,
    >> but can subtract from sitting comfort. Springs or none.

    >
    > WAIT a minute... you think sub-mm flex in an axially-loaded tube is so
    > significant that you denigrate those who say they can't feel it, and
    > THEN say that a saddle doesn't have any effect on ride quality, even
    > though it's suspended on long, thin flexible rods, built like a
    > virtual hammock, and covered with padding?


    A sprung saddle is not necessarily more comfortable, even with shocks. Arms
    and legs make up a good deal of shock management, leaving one in control,
    especially, if it is not a purely vertical shock. Ride quality seems to
    mean something very different to you than to me.

    > You're either trolling or operating in an entirely different physical
    > universe than the rest of us apparently. Seriously - read what you
    > wrote above and hopefully the nonsensical nature of your position will
    > become apparent.


    No troll. I read it - I'm right.

    > If not, you can believe what you wanna believe. If you can logically
    > reach the conclusion you typed above I don't think it's likely that
    > we're going to be able to turn your opinion based on logic.
    > Seriously.


    Seriously, do you mean that Seven is deceiving us when they write :

    Vertical Compliance:

    We've all heard generalizations like, "titanium is flexy" and,

    "aluminum is stiff". But you may be surprised to hear that the

    tube sizes - diameter and wall thickness - have more to do

    with determining a frame's ride characteristics than the material

    itself does. At Seven, we hand pick each tube in your frame,

    so we can impart precisely the level of plushness or stiffness

    you desire. Our Signature SizeT frames "as is" rate a comfy 3

    on the Vertical Compliance scale, but if you prefer to feel more

    of the road, we will choose your tube set accordingly.


    Where's the rigid truss bridge in their scheme of things ? Are your
    titanium frames uncomfortable ? Do they suffer from unpleasant ride quality
    ?
    --
    Bonne route,

    Sandy
    Verneuil-sur-Seine FR
     
  19. Werehatrack

    Werehatrack Guest

    On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 00:48:21 +0200, "Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Sorry, Peter, the same saddle, the original Concor. I am loathe to part
    >with a saddle I like, and I had one for 8 years, and had another replace it
    >for another 5. You could be really helpful, if you could direct me to a new
    >one, not the light Concor, as I tried it, and t'aint the same animal.


    My S.O. has a theory that anything good gets discontinued before you
    have a chance to wear out or use up the first one, be it saddles or
    spices or socks or whatever. I had a favorite saddle on a bike that
    got stolen last year, and it took me three months to track down
    another one. Not that I'm recommending it to anyone; lots of people
    can't stand that unit, and the guy I got it from was glad to be rid of
    it. Saddles are probably the least predictable part of a bike when it
    comes to comfort.
    --
    Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
    Some gardening required to reply via email.
    Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.
     
Loading...
Loading...