DM4 said:I am using the Svetlanta Winged "C" 6550s in the Paoli power amps and vintage Telefunken 12AX7s in the CJ. The reminder fo the CJ tubes are NOS Mullards.
Like I said earlier I could care less what bike anyone rides what I should have said the new age technology and a 5 year newer bike and a few lbs less made the bike more responsive than I was use to and yes the bike did move that much faster while standing on the pedals if you care to disagree go for it but if you don't think a couple of lbs. or newer technology makes a difference in accleleration or climbing apparantely you don't know too much about bikes.alienator said:Please tell me how it is that a bike can almost "jump out underneath you," espcially when you consider that human acceleration on a bike is so slow that there is virtually no difference at all in rates of acceleration based on bikes of different weights.
I always wondered where these magical bikes came from or where they were purchased.
Zurichman said:Like I said earlier I could care less what bike anyone rides what I should have said the new age technology and a 5 year newer bike and a few lbs less made the bike more responsive than I was use to and yes the bike did move that much faster while standing on the pedals if you care to disagree go for it but if you don't think a couple of lbs. or newer technology makes a difference in accleleration or climbing apparantely you don't know too much about bikes.
Zman
Wurm said:...AND the stuff that's the "best value" (or most affordable) is what I'd add to that.
Well, I did 71 miles on my 18.8 lb. steel pig yesterday, and with the many climbs here in the Adirondacks my avg. of 16.9 was not too shabby. No complaints from me or the bike.
Rick_G said:Wurm,
You've got some hot stuff there too! I'm humbled by you two.
P.S. Do you guys go to the Tube Asylum board?
http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/tubes/bbs.html
alienator said:Any speed difference...is due completely to the miles on my legs and how my legs feel.
alienator said:As for ride differences, there are significant ride differences...BUT those are mostly due to fit....I can say that none of the bikes displayed any material specific ride, performance, or whatever. ...
17lb + frames? Damn! How heavy are the complete bikes?alienator said:...there are actually quite a few pros that are riding 17lb + frames on the Pro Tour...
EoinC said:17lb + frames? Damn! How heavy are the complete bikes?
Wurm said:Well, I did 71 miles on my 18.8 lb. steel pig yesterday, and with the many climbs here in the Adirondacks my avg. of 16.9 was not too shabby. No complaints from me or the bike.
Generally, the counties within about 50 miles of the Albany area, plus S. Vermont and E. Mass, (Green and Berkshire Mts.).Xsmoker said:Hey, where exactly do you ride in the Adirondacks?
You are a great, great man.DM4 said:Oh ****, I'm giving up. Just let me keep the red wine and women in tight sweaters...
DM4 said:Steel vs. Carbon
Tublar vs. Clincher
Alalog vs. Digital
Silicone vs. Saline
Coke vs. Pepsi
Mac vs. PC
Tubes vs. Transistors
Doggie vs. Missionary
Homer vs. Ned
...and on and on...I just can't take it anymore
Oh ****, I'm giving up. Just let me keep the red wine and women in tight sweaters...
alienator said:Oh, you're going to bring science into the matter? Then please, using accepted methods, prove just how superior CF is to other frame materials. Note that as in science, the repsonsibility for proving a wild claim is that of the person making the wild claim....so have at it. And good luck.
You make claims about CF that are dodgy and pointless:
1. Great strength to weight ratio: and so what? Steel also exhibits a great strength to weight ratio. More important that than this ratio, though, is how the material is actually employed in the frame. As such, steel, aluminum, titanium, magnesium, et al all exceed very well their performance parameters.
2. Light weight: again, so what? The supposed "light weight" advantage is as specious as the advantage of low rotational moment of inertia. When the numbers are crunched--and if you have difficulty crunching the numbers, go to Analytic Cycling, put numbers in their models, and see how little light weight matters when it comes to performance. Their models, by the way, have been verified by independent models done by MarkMcM at Weight Weenies, ScienceIsCool, myself, and others with actual scientific and engineering backgrounds.
And exactly how do you mean lighter? Is it's specific weight less? And what particular CF composite are you referring to? You are aware, aren't you, that they're not all the same, right?
And exactly lighter than what? Only an idiot would make a frame of steel and then turn around and use the exact same tubing dimensions, angles....all the same dimensions and parameters with the only difference being that instead of steel, CF is used. So is that the scenario you're talking about?
Just so you have a bit more knowledge to work with...especially compared to the very small resources that you seem to be using now....there are actually quite a few pros that are riding 17lb + frames on the Pro Tour. Hmmmm. Imagine that. These same pros can choose lighter frame options from their sponsors, yet they continue, at times, to use frames whose massive (and ain't 17lbs just massive?) weights must be keeping them off the podium....
3. Corrosion? Fatigue? You're kidding, right? I hope you're not going to pull out the old saw about how steel rusts......The unavoidable fact is that such concerns are not concerns to people that take very minimal care of their bikes. And if people can't even take minimal care of their bikes, then even the most hardy material won't protect them against their own ignorance. Alunimum may have the dodgiest fatigue characteristics, but that rarely is a problem for aluminum bikes. It really only becomes a problem when a rear dropout is bent, and for that reason, most Al bikes come w/ replaceable dropouts. Magnesium corrodes more easily than the other materials, yet pre-coating the magnesium bits effectively protects them for as long as the owner needs. CF also has its own issues. Material failures can be difficult to detect; CF generally does poorly in impact testing, especially in very localized impacts which are likely to only dent a metal tube. CF requires that owners pay more attention to their bike, potential damage, and etc. And if a guy or gal can't look after a steel bike well enough to keep it from rusting, then they're certainly not going to be able to look after a CF bike well enough to know when damage has been done or to known when more intense structural analysis is needed.
4.Exactly what range in a given CF parts vibration spectrum is the CF particularly good at damping? You might want to answer this carefully since it is known by people working in various disciplines that CF's response to certain vibrational spectra is very BAD for certain applications. Or maybe your generalization is just that: a really, stupid, generalization.
5. Stiffer means "which transmits more of my energy into forward motion..." Really? How? So you are going to allege that a force delivered to the pedal such that said force has components that aren't parallel to the vector defining the direction of motion...that such a force wouldn't exist on stiffer frame? Hmmmm. So is it the rider or the material generating the forces that don't act parallel to the direction of travel? Hmmm. That seems to violate everything that I learned in Newtonian Mechanics. That seems to violate much of what I learned in Engineering Dynamics...... Please, explain how your new science works.
Tell us, please, exactly where it is that your vast scientific and engineering knowledge come from....you know the knowledge with which you can make such extraordinary claims. If you're an engineer, then it's certainly valid for people to question your skills when you insist on using the applicability of CF in an aerospace application as proof, justification, or whatever for the use of CF in a bicycle. What's really bad about such "justifications" is that you never actually get around to making specific proofs, calculations, or demonstrations of how for a given set of criteria, CF would trump steel, Al, Mg, or Ti .
Then, because you can't make such proofs, you quickly retreat a few steps and say...."That's why I ride carbon and you ride steel & alu/carbon. It's the individuals choice..." Totally laughable.
DM4 said:I have vaccuum tubes warming up, so let me get back to the red wine and the women in tight sweaters (I know, I know; one track mind).
Eldron said:Did someone say carbon nanotubes? Merida and some others are already making them (Eldron wipes the drool from his mouth...)
Alas you are quite right - not on the steel issues of course but on the tight sweaters and red wine...
Being a steel addict I automatically imagine you as a 50 something male with a long beard and a cupboard full of wool jerseys (cos lycra just isn't better damnit!!!) but today this puppy dog will concede and agree that more time should be spent on wine, women and song!
And with that I have to add - South African women and South African wine are both better than american ;-)
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.