Re: Carbon Fiber Seat Stays = Better Ride?

[41]

[email protected] wrote:
> On 15 Apr 2005 20:34:32 -0700, "41" <[email protected]>
> wrote:

> >As you can see at over a pound and a quarter, a standard basketball
can
> >weigh four or more times one of your sog gy baseballs, and thus at
the
> >same velocity will have four or more times the kinetic energy. The
> >basketball also bounces much better, and so is much poorer at
absorbing
> >energy.
> >
> >Experiment: have a friend drop one of each on your head from t he
same
> >height, and see which impact gives you the greater sting. Or throw
one
> >of each hard against a wood floor and see which one dents the floor
or
> >gives your feet the greater sting. When you have done that I think
you
> >will understand why in deed that high pressure tire must be inserted
> >between the bat and the "soggy" ball before the correct vibration
and
> >shock transmission can be experienced.
>
> Dear 41,
>
> Please repeat the experiment with the appropriate
> baseball-weight miniature basketball.

You don't seem to realize that by being four times as massive, the
basketball starts off with a major disadvantage already. Why not try
the experiement with the appropriate baskeball-weight giant baseball
and see how you like it bouncing on your head?

In any case, here is an experiment that may "resonate" better with most
people:

-----------------
Property Size 5 Soccer Ball Specification

Weight 420 - 445 grams
Rebound at 20°C 120 - 165 cm
Rebound at 5°C min. 120 cm
max. difference between
lowest and highest
rebound per ball tested: 10cm

Each ball being dropped 10 times from a height of 2 meters onto a
steel plate.
------------------

As you can see a soccer ball similarly weighs around three times as
much as a baseball and so has three times the kinetic energy at a given
velocity. Therefore it has much more work to do, so to speak, to absorb
the shock of impact. You will note that it also bounces almost as well
as a basketball and so absorbs far less energy than one of your "soggy"
baseballs.

Experiment: which would you prefer to do World Cup headers with, the
soccer ball, or your "soggy" baseball? I'm afraid even your excessively
hard head would not protect you from the latter. Carl Fogel and carbon
fibre rear triangle fantasy, RIP.

Before you do the experiment, think again while you still can which
does the better job of absorbing shock, and why indeed you would need
to wrap that baseball bat with a pneumatic tire to get the right data.
l

 

[Mark Hickey]

Mike Latondresse <mikelat@no_spam_shaw.ca> wrote:

>jim beam <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:1113570854.4ba7376d7e91fcd78e8be44559ee6440@teranews:
>
>> let me ask, have you ridden a bike that's been converted from a
>> steel to a carbon fork? [conversion of an existing bike
>> eliminates all other variables.] if you do that with a bike you
>> own & love, you will be able to differentiate a "before" & "after"
>> of the carbon vibration transmission quite easily. same for a
>> carbon seat post.
>>
>Specially if I paid $350+ for the carbon fork, it will be soooo much
>smoother.

I'll sell you the same fork for $8,200 so you can have a remarkably
smooth ride... ;-)

Mark "pleased to be of service" Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

 

[Mark Hickey]

[email protected] wrote:

>Mark Hickey wrote:

>> Dang, Skippy... I gotta start reading ahead in these threads. I
>can't
>> believe we both came up with the same google counterpoint!
>
>Yeah, but mine was more specific. I was interested only in abductions
>by _space_ aliens, not by people from other countries. ;-)
>
>And by some logic, it looks like there must be ... Hmmm, let's see:
>215,000 minus 174,000 equals 41,000 abductions by foreigners who are
>not from outer space!
>
>Wow. We _do_ have to tighten our immigration policies!

Heh... but it appears 81% of our abduction problem is due to space
aliens. Who woulda thunk it?

>OK, enough politics. Back to the on-topic flame wars! ;-)

But of course!

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

 

[Mark Hickey]

"Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote:

>OK, but what if you forget the magic material ? What if you had ten
>different bikes, all equipped with the same wheel system, tires, tubes, seat
>posts and saddles. Like Easton Scandium, for example. Are you saying that
>there would be no difference objectively experienced by riders ? This gets
>rid of the carbon issue, no ? I really doubt that each of the bikes
>transmits vibration the same way and in the same amplitude.

Funny you bring that up - it's been done (to a more limited degree).

Back in the early 80's (IIRC), 'Bicycle Guide' did a study on tubing.
They had identical bikes built from every tubing supplied by Columbus
(IIRC), and outfitted each precisely the same.

Now the tubes were all steel, but ran the range from entry-level pipes
to ultra-exotic stuff.

At the time this was being done, it was "common knowledge" that
"replacing the ABC seat tube with and XYZ seat tube resulted in a much
snappier ride, and provided an armchair ride compared to that harsh
ABC seat tube". Anyone who would suggest that you didn't radically
change the ride by changing to a new set of tubes was considered a
heretic.

Thing is, when they rolled out the bikes and had their normal
"experts" ride them - no one could tell anything about the ride of any
of the bikes, since they didn't know what they should be expecting.
In fact, in the end the lowest-end tubing won the overall "ride
quality" survey. All those ride qualities that had been reported on
so consistently for decades vanished in a puff of placebo-flavored
smoke.

So no, "experienced riders" can't really make distinctions about a lot
of "obvious things" unless they know what they're supposed to feel (in
which case they suddenly CAN "feel the difference"). A great example
was the aluminum frame conundrum. Back in the early 80's, the popular
aluminum bike was the Vitus. It had steel-like diameters, so it was
pretty much a noodle. It gained a strong reputation for being
flexible.

Enter Klein and Cannondale, with their humongous tubes.

At the same time the US bike magazine "experts" were reporting
butt-bashing, bone-shattering ride qualities, the European bike
magazine "experts" were reporting soft, comfortable ride. They each
had expectations, and each "felt" things consistent with those
expectations.

Again, all too often when talking about ride quality, "experts
aren't".

Mark "no expert" Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

 

[Sandy]

Dans le message de : news:[email protected],
Mark Hickey <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> "Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> OK, but what if you forget the magic material ? What if you had ten
>> different bikes, all equipped with the same wheel system, tires,
>> tubes, seat posts and saddles. Like Easton Scandium, for example.
>> Are you saying that there would be no difference objectively
>> experienced by riders ? This gets rid of the carbon issue, no ? I
>> really doubt that each of the bikes transmits vibration the same way
>> and in the same amplitude.
>
> Funny you bring that up - it's been done (to a more limited degree).
>
> Back in the early 80's (IIRC), 'Bicycle Guide' did a study on tubing.
> They had identical bikes built from every tubing supplied by Columbus
> (IIRC), and outfitted each precisely the same.
>
> Now the tubes were all steel, but ran the range from entry-level pipes
> to ultra-exotic stuff.
>
> At the time this was being done, it was "common knowledge" that
> "replacing the ABC seat tube with and XYZ seat tube resulted in a much
> snappier ride, and provided an armchair ride compared to that harsh
> ABC seat tube". Anyone who would suggest that you didn't radically
> change the ride by changing to a new set of tubes was considered a
> heretic.
>
> Thing is, when they rolled out the bikes and had their normal
> "experts" ride them - no one could tell anything about the ride of any
> of the bikes, since they didn't know what they should be expecting.
> In fact, in the end the lowest-end tubing won the overall "ride
> quality" survey. All those ride qualities that had been reported on
> so consistently for decades vanished in a puff of placebo-flavored
> smoke.

Trusting in your recall, it still is not pertinent to the issue of reduction
of vibration. I think no one will claim that the mild Columbus tubing was
"soft" and, thus, given to ride comfort. I may not as easily believe that
the thrust of the test was to evaluate racing bikes.

> So no, "experienced riders" can't really make distinctions about a lot
> of "obvious things" unless they know what they're supposed to feel (in
> which case they suddenly CAN "feel the difference"). A great example
> was the aluminum frame conundrum. Back in the early 80's, the popular
> aluminum bike was the Vitus. It had steel-like diameters, so it was
> pretty much a noodle. It gained a strong reputation for being
> flexible.
>
> Enter Klein and Cannondale, with their humongous tubes.

Had a 992 (true noodle) briefly ; had a Cannondale SR400 a long time
(sitting was always a bit painful).

Your comments lead one to believe that neither material nor construction of
a frame results in comfort differences or reductions of vibration effects.
I am very unconvinced of this, but that's only one part of the story. The
other is about a Lotus SL (or SLX?) I had for 4 years. Having a bug to
change bikes, I sold it. The day it was to be picked up, I took a 10 km
ride, to be sure there would be no dissatisfaction. I also changed the
wheelset back to some Fiamme tubs with silks, having tried to make the
"sensible move" to the new Kevlar beaded tires. Result : I really didn't
want to part with this bike. Yes, the tires and wheels made an enormous
difference, much more than the frame.

> Mark "no expert" Hickey
> Habanero Cycles
> http://www.habcycles.com
> Home of the $695 ti frame

Care to say how titanium has magical qualities ?

--
Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

*******

La vie, c'est comme une bicyclette,
il faut avancer pour ne pas perdre l'équilibre.
-- Einstein, A.

 

[Werehatrack]

On 16 Apr 2005 03:24:05 -0700, "41" <[email protected]> wrote:

[snippety-snap]
>You don't seem to realize that by being four times as massive, the
>basketball starts off with a major disadvantage already. Why not try
>the experiement with the appropriate baskeball-weight giant baseball
>and see how you like it bouncing on your head?
>
>In any case, here is an experiment that may "resonate" better with most
>people:
[mo snip]

Poke the bat with the soft cushions!
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

 

[Mike Latondresse]

Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Mike Latondresse <mikelat@no_spam_shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>>jim beam <[email protected]> wrote in
>>news:1113570854.4ba7376d7e91fcd78e8be44559ee6440@teranews:
>>
>>> let me ask, have you ridden a bike that's been converted from a
>>> steel to a carbon fork? [conversion of an existing bike
>>> eliminates all other variables.] if you do that with a bike you
>>> own & love, you will be able to differentiate a "before" &
"after"
>>> of the carbon vibration transmission quite easily. same for a
>>> carbon seat post.
>>>
>>Specially if I paid $350+ for the carbon fork, it will be soooo
much
>>smoother.
>
> I'll sell you the same fork for $8,200 so you can have a remarkably
> smooth ride... ;-)
>
> Mark "pleased to be of service" Hickey
> Habanero Cycles
> http://www.habcycles.com
> Home of the $695 ti frame
Come on Mark that's a ridiculous price for a fork....now if we were
talking $7900 you might have a deal and I know it would be smoother.

 

[Peter Cole]

[email protected] wrote:
>
> But in this discussion, we're talking about people pretending - or
> believing - there are numerical criteria that don't exist. What's
> really happening is advertisers a spewing a little techno-babble to
> generate emotional responses, and non-technical people are buying
that
> baloney.

My opinion is that there are really 2 questions: the one that has been
discussed -- do carbon stays actually work, and the other, more
important question -- is there really a problem to be solved in the
first place?

I don't know about anyone else, but I just don't have a "vibration"
problem with any of my bikes. I think carbon fiber stays are a solution
looking for a problem, if in fact they're a solution to anything at all
(vs. expensive placebo). The most diabolical marketing is that which
invents a problem to sell you a solution. As I said before, if there
was a problem, there are better places to solve it than the seatstays,
but that wouldn't sell many exotic/expensive frames.

 

[Mark Hickey]

Mike Latondresse <mikelat@no_spam_shaw.ca> wrote:

>Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> Mike Latondresse <mikelat@no_spam_shaw.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>jim beam <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>news:1113570854.4ba7376d7e91fcd78e8be44559ee6440@teranews:
>>>
>>>> let me ask, have you ridden a bike that's been converted from a
>>>> steel to a carbon fork? [conversion of an existing bike
>>>> eliminates all other variables.] if you do that with a bike you
>>>> own & love, you will be able to differentiate a "before" &
>"after"
>>>> of the carbon vibration transmission quite easily. same for a
>>>> carbon seat post.
>>>>
>>>Specially if I paid $350+ for the carbon fork, it will be soooo
>much
>>>smoother.
>>
>> I'll sell you the same fork for $8,200 so you can have a remarkably
>> smooth ride... ;-)
>>
>Come on Mark that's a ridiculous price for a fork....now if we were
>talking $7900 you might have a deal and I know it would be smoother.

Did I mention the $300 rebate I'm offering if you call before midnight
tonight?

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

 

[Sandy]

Dans le message de :
news:[email protected],
[email protected] <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> Sandy wrote:
>>
>>
>> OK, but what if you forget the magic material ? What if you had ten
>> different bikes, all equipped with the same wheel system, tires,
>> tubes, seat posts and saddles. Like Easton Scandium, for example.
>> Are you saying that there would be no difference objectively
>> experienced by riders ?
> This gets
>> rid of the carbon issue, no ? I really doubt that each of the bikes
>> transmits vibration the same way and in the same amplitude.
>
> I'm not clear on exactly what bikes you're proposing comparing - that
> is, are you talking about comparing different bikes that are all
> different materials, with similar stiffnesses? Or different bikes
> with similar materials yet different stiffnesses?

I will try to clarify - there must be a dozen bikes made by different
constructors from, e.g., Easton Scandium. Are there preceptible differences
in their vibration absorption properties ?

> But if you're talking just sensing vibration, and you're talking about
> identical frame geometries and identical macroscopic stiffnesses -
> then yes, I am saying that there would be no perceptible difference in
> vibration transmission.

Of course I wasn't !! I was *not* writing about manufacturing
variations within one company's single product. I would hope there are not
significant differences.

> As Mark Hickey mentions in another post, this was proven by one bike
> magazine's writers a few years ago. When a blind test of similar
> frames was set up, the same "experts" that had been so perceptive of
> ride qualities in so many road tests simply could not tell what they
> were riding!

So, what may have been measurable on non-human equipment didn't find a
confirmation when in actual use ? I'm not very surprised. You almost go
out of your way to prove the opposite of your point.

>>> If you can't assign numbers to
>>> something, it's a lot harder to come up with definitive evaluations.
>>
>> Not true. Everyday life doesn't equip us with measurement devices
>> for all that we experience, yet most people have a reasonable time
>> making choices based on what they feel.
>
> You're misunderstanding what I wrote. Of course people can make
> choices based on what they feel, and the criteria they use for their
> choices don't have to be numerically measurable. Those choices
> involve emotional criteria.

No, they don't, not always. It's usually a question of experience. When
you're driving a car (if you do), you have to make judgments about it's
ability to respond to your inputs, and you don't sit back and do the math
for each curve, red light, or obstacle in the road. You make judgments.
You may evaluate the vegetables you buy by color, aroma, touch. My cheese
store sells me based on whether it will be consumed in 2 or 4 or 8 or 24
hours. He's an expert, not using anything more recordable than his fingers
and his nose (and no, not fingers in nose). Maybe all those pseudo-experts
Mr Hickey refers to were just posers, having no real aptitude for the job at
hand.

> But in this discussion, we're talking about people pretending - or
> believing - there are numerical criteria that don't exist.

Not in my opinion - that's not what is being pursued. Until there are data
(bicycle specific) offered to support the claims of anyone writing here, and
I've not yet seen any, we are just offering personal opinions. If those
opinions are all wishful thinking, then someone ought to post the exact
perfect bicycle to save us all the trouble of making up our individual
minds.

Yeah, technology is so precise these days, it can find a Chinese diplomatic
building and bomb it perfectly - while aiming at some other target.
Knowledge is a tool, not an end.


--
Bonne route,

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

 

[[email protected]]

I guess this boils down to vibrations rather than shock absorbing from
what has been offered by those who believe carbon fiber seat stays
improve ride comfort. So let's get to the essence. What frequencies
are being damped by these stays?

For example, let's use one as a sounding probe. If such a stay were
held between the ear and a piece of vibrating machinery to asses some
noises, as is often done in machine applications, would one expect to
hear more or less using a steel seat stay or a carbon fiber one... or
a 1/2 inch wooden dowel of equal length for that matter?

This reminds me of the rider who claimed he could feel the difference
between 1.5mm diameter spokes and 2.0mm diameter ones, something that
could be as great as riding over a sheet of copier paper lying on the
road (aka 0.003"). I don't believe the claimed damping is in the
acoustic range and it certainly isn't in the human touch range, or we
would see some deflections. So where is it once more?

[email protected]

 

[[email protected]]

Sandy wrote:
> I was *not* writing about manufacturing
> variations within one company's single product. I would hope there
are not
> significant differences.

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. What I'm saying is, the results (or
non-results?) of that steel tube blind comparison would, I believe, be
the same in a blind comparison test of different frame materials.

IOW: Make up four frames, all with the same wheelbase, angles, trail,
size, etc. but different materials. Design them so the bottom bracket
sway is the same (since that's easily felt, but not pertinent to our
question). Mount identical wheels, cranks, etc. Cover the frames with
foam and wrapping tape, or whatever it takes to hide things like tubing
diameter and material. And let four "expert" magazine road testers
assess the ride qualities, including shock absorption or vibration
absorption. I contend they won't be able to tell the difference.

>
> >>> If you can't assign numbers to
> >>> something, it's a lot harder to come up with definitive
evaluations.
> >>
> >> Not true. Everyday life doesn't equip us with measurement devices
> >> for all that we experience, yet most people have a reasonable time
> >> making choices based on what they feel.
> >
> > You're misunderstanding what I wrote. Of course people can make
> > choices based on what they feel, and the criteria they use for
their
> > choices don't have to be numerically measurable. Those choices
> > involve emotional criteria.
>
> No, they don't, not always. It's usually a question of experience.
When
> you're driving a car (if you do), you have to make judgments about
it's
> ability to respond to your inputs, and you don't sit back and do the
math
> for each curve, red light, or obstacle in the road. You make
judgments.
> You may evaluate the vegetables you buy by color, aroma, touch.

Of course. But if we were to attempt some definitive ranking of cars,
or of vegetables, we'd try to go beyond subjective perceptions,
_because_ they depend on the subject. You see this all the time in
road tests of cars. They don't simply ask the test driver's opinion on
acceleration, handling, braking, etc. They give numbers telling how
fast it accelerated, how fast it could negotiate a chicane, how quickly
it stopped.

Even when forced to use subjective criteria, there's a tendency to use
numbers. Movies get anywhere from "one star" to "four stars." Our
local paper occasionally goes further, giving ratings from several
reviewers, so a person could compute an average, if desired.

You may prefer George Lucas while another prefers Woody Allen films.
That's fine - it's personal taste. But again, If you can't assign
numbers to something, it's a lot harder to come up with definitive
evaluations.

>
> > But in this discussion, we're talking about people pretending - or
> > believing - there are numerical criteria that don't exist.
>
> Not in my opinion - that's not what is being pursued. Until there
are data
> (bicycle specific) offered to support the claims of anyone writing
here, and
> I've not yet seen any, we are just offering personal opinions.

The general discussion of ride quality has come dozens of times (often
in regard to "harsh" aluminum frames). In those discussions, there
have been many times that people have pointed data on the deflection of
the seat stays compared to the deflection of the tire, wheel, seatpost
and saddle.

Briefly, the deflection of the other components is at least 100 times
greater than the deflection of the seat stays. (To me, this seems very
obvious, but we could repeat it all if you like.) Those deflections
are not just personal opinions. They're able to be calculated, and
they're able to be measured.

And again: If something can't deflect, how can it absorb vibration or
shock?


If those
> opinions are all wishful thinking, then someone ought to post the
exact
> perfect bicycle to save us all the trouble of making up our
individual
> minds.

Forget "exact perfect." There's no such thing. The bicycle you want
is the one that suits your needs and is within your budget.

The trick is in remembering that much of what's advertised is not what
you need. In the case of vibration-absorbing carbon stays, it's not
even something that really exists.

I'd say, forget about chasing _this_ year's new trend. It won't really
transform your riding experience. It won't really make you faster, or
more comfortable after 100 miles. I will just make your wallet
lighter.

Ride yer bike.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[Sandy]

Dans le message de :
news:[email protected],
[email protected] <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :

> Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. What I'm saying is, the results (or
> non-results?) of that steel tube blind comparison would, I believe, be
> the same in a blind comparison test of different frame materials.

Ask yourself : when standing to climb a hill, is the chain/derailleur rub
(often encountered) present on all bikes ? Can you have this happen without
the rims flexing back and forth and rubbing the brake pads ? Or the second
without the first ?

> IOW: Make up four frames, all with the same wheelbase, angles, trail,
> size, etc. but different materials. Design them so the bottom bracket
> sway is the same (since that's easily felt, but not pertinent to our
> question). Mount identical wheels, cranks, etc. Cover the frames
> with foam and wrapping tape, or whatever it takes to hide things like
> tubing diameter and material. And let four "expert" magazine road
> testers assess the ride qualities, including shock absorption or
> vibration absorption. I contend they won't be able to tell the
> difference.

All deflections on a bicycle, from force applied in pedaling, or from forces
acting on the bike from the irregular road surface, are potentially
perceptible, depending on the attention of the rider and the degree of
deflection. Also, as Mr Brandt inquired, the frequencies of vibration need
be examined. Composite appreciation of these effects are found in riders'
evaluations.

> The general discussion of ride quality has come dozens of times (often
> in regard to "harsh" aluminum frames). In those discussions, there
> have been many times that people have pointed data on the deflection
> of the seat stays compared to the deflection of the tire, wheel,
> seatpost and saddle.

I never saw these as hard numbers. Care to supply them ? Mine (from
reading) are below.
>
> Briefly, the deflection of the other components is at least 100 times
> greater than the deflection of the seat stays. (To me, this seems
> very obvious, but we could repeat it all if you like.) Those
> deflections are not just personal opinions. They're able to be
> calculated, and they're able to be measured.

I wonder if you have the opportunity to read Le Cycle ; probably not. They
test the deflection of a frame, and don't agree with you. For example,
regarding the Scott DR1 Team issue (from the April 2005 issue, using their
very specific testing) :

Head tube deflection - 6 mm
Bottom bracket deflection - 0.28 mm
Rear triangle deflection - 3.90 mm

And they compare this with reputedly stiff and supple bikes :

Specialized S-Works Tarmac :
Head tube deflection - 6 mm
Bottom bracket deflection - 0.70 mm
Rear triangle deflection - 2.65 mm

Trek Madone 5900 :
Head tube deflection - 11 mm
Bottom bracket deflection - 0.70 mm
Rear triangle deflection - 3.59 mm

> And again: If something can't deflect, how can it absorb vibration or
> shock?

And if it does deflect ????? Well, it does, it seems, and significantly.

Not to mention your degree of magnitude misstatement - 100 times ! You
certainly don't expect that the tires or wheels move a third of a metre,
I'll bet. Change the degree of magnitude to 10, and you still don't have a
reasonable result : 3-4 cm. So, the objective measurements tell us that
your premise is inaccurate. This is just one issue's testing of one bike,
and there's a bunch more, should you care to read them.

As Mr Brandt suggests, you may not be ready to ride with wood doweling for
your rear support, even though there are bamboo bikes available. Vibration
damping is the key factor, in my opinion, where unpleasant and even
dangerous road surfaces are tamed by the construction and materials of a
bike. That is certainly measurable, but I'm not the person to offer any
comments - I ain't no expert. Intuitively, I believe that tires and wheels
affect comfort significantly more than frame materials, but comfort is not
the only objective here. Stability on bad roads is also prized. I can't
guess what kind of roads you ride, but where I live, cobbles are part of
every village I go through on my rides, as are truly miserable road
surfaces.

Lastly, all your theorizing doesn't come up with numbers, which you say you
like. When I read them, from your sources, then I will take the time to
evaluate them and incorporate them into what I know.
--
Bonne route,

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

 

[Derk]

Peter Cole wrote:

> The most diabolical marketing is that which
> invents a problem to sell you a solution.
I agree. I have thought often about what will be next in frame technology.
Once the market has been saturated with carbon frames, what will we see
then? I think it would be interesting to see if we can predict what the
next marketing trick will be: steel frames with carbon inserts? Or maybe
something else? I'm curious what you all think about the future of frame
materials.

Greetings, Derk

 

[Helmut Springer]

In rec.bicycles.tech [email protected] wrote:
> IOW: Make up four frames, all with the same wheelbase, angles,
> trail, size, etc. but different materials. Design them so the
> bottom bracket sway is the same (since that's easily felt, but not
> pertinent to our question). Mount identical wheels, cranks, etc.
> Cover the frames with foam and wrapping tape, or whatever it takes
> to hide things like tubing diameter and material. And let four
> "expert" magazine road testers assess the ride qualities,
> including shock absorption or vibration absorption. I contend
> they won't be able to tell the difference.

Agreed regarding ride quality, but they might be by sound. At least
my oversized Zona (0,7-0,4-0,7mm steel) frame sounds different than
his Aelle (plain 0,7mm steel) predecessor. Especially the larger
downtubes make a resonator for some frequencies.


> Ride yer bike.

Yup, supposed to be sunny today 8)

--
MfG/Best regards
helmut springer

 

[Peter Cole]

Sandy wrote:
> Dans le message de :

> I wonder if you have the opportunity to read Le Cycle ; probably not.
They
> test the deflection of a frame, and don't agree with you. For
example,
> regarding the Scott DR1 Team issue (from the April 2005 issue, using
their
> very specific testing) :
>

> Rear triangle deflection - 3.90 mm

Wow! Almost 4mm! I guess we should all read the magazines more often!
While 4mm is not bad for a start, I get perhaps 10x that from my
Nashbar suspension seatpost, with elastomer damping, too. Oh yeah,
mine's also adjustable! Try something like that, perhaps with one of
those saddles with springs if all those cobblestones are ruining your
ride!

How much for that fancypants bike? My hi-tech seatpost was only $9.95,
plus shipping of course (on sale). Too bad about the roads, if I ever
get to France I'm bringing my full suspension mountain bike!

 

[Stephen Harding]

Sandy wrote:

> Yeah, technology is so precise these days, it can find a Chinese
> diplomatic building and bomb it perfectly - while aiming at some other
> target. Knowledge is a tool, not an end.

Except possibly they weren't aiming at another target!


SMH

 

[Sandy]

Dans le message de :
news:[email protected],
Peter Cole <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> Sandy wrote:
>> Dans le message de :
>
>> I wonder if you have the opportunity to read Le Cycle ; probably
>> not. They test the deflection of a frame, and don't agree with you.
>> For example, regarding the Scott DR1 Team issue (from the April 2005
>> issue, using their very specific testing) :
>>
>
>> Rear triangle deflection - 3.90 mm
>
> Wow! Almost 4mm! I guess we should all read the magazines more often!

As opposed to the writers claiming zero, perhaps it has its significance.
If you weren't so intent on covering your overstatements, perhaps you would
have learned something new.

> While 4mm is not bad for a start, I get perhaps 10x that from my
> Nashbar suspension seatpost, with elastomer damping, too. Oh yeah,
> mine's also adjustable! Try something like that, perhaps with one of
> those saddles with springs if all those cobblestones are ruining your
> ride!

To paraphrase another writer : Cobbles are not a hindrance, they are a
feature.


--
Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

*******

La vie, c'est comme une bicyclette,
il faut avancer pour ne pas perdre l'équilibre.
-- Einstein, A.

 

[[email protected]]

Peter Cole writes:

>> I wonder if you have the opportunity to read Le Cycle ; probably
>> not. They test the deflection of a frame, and don't agree with
>> you. For example, regarding the Scott DR1 Team issue (from the
>> April 2005 issue, using their very specific testing):

>> Rear triangle deflection - 3.90 mm

> Wow! Almost 4mm! I guess we should all read the magazines more
> often! While 4mm is not bad for a start, I get perhaps 10x that
> from my Nashbar suspension seatpost, with elastomer damping, too. Oh
> yeah, mine's also adjustable! Try something like that, perhaps with
> one of those saddles with springs if all those cobblestones are
> ruining your ride!

Oops! That is lateral deflection and as I mentioned, the cosine of
one degree is close to zero change (in length). Deflection of value
in shock absorption would be bowing out from compression which does
not occur.

> How much for that fancypants bike? My hi-tech seatpost was only
> $9.95, plus shipping of course (on sale). Too bad about the roads,
> if I ever get to France I'm bringing my full suspension mountain
> bike!

Don't waste you money on hype!

[email protected]

 

[Peter]

Sandy wrote:
> I wonder if you have the opportunity to read Le Cycle ; probably not.
> They test the deflection of a frame, and don't agree with you. For
> example, regarding the Scott DR1 Team issue (from the April 2005 issue,
> using their very specific testing) :
>
> Head tube deflection - 6 mm
> Bottom bracket deflection - 0.28 mm
> Rear triangle deflection - 3.90 mm

Are these numbers for vertical deflection or for lateral (side-to-side)?
The supposed shock absorption is for vertical impacts and it is in
that plane that the bicycle frame is particularly rigid. No one is
doubting that a frame will deflect significantly laterally - but that's
not going to improve comfort when the impacts from road bumps are vertical.