Steel no longer real?

[Doug Landau]

How come nobody ever says steel is real anymore?

[AMuzi]

On 11/24/2015 3:57 PM, Doug Landau wrote:
>
> How come nobody ever says steel is real anymore?
>

Maybe because you haven't asked lately:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/wfd650t2.jpg



--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[Frank Krygowski]

On 11/24/2015 4:57 PM, Doug Landau wrote:
>
> How come nobody ever says steel is real anymore?

Because we already know that?

--
- Frank Krygowski

[avag...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, November 24, 2015 at 2:57:36 PM UTC-7, Doug Landau wrote:
> How come nobody ever says steel is real anymore?

https://picasaweb.google.com/102234459580640424681/DESCHUTESREDLINEMONODOG?authkey=Gv1sRgCLXgh7vgyN2PFw#slideshow/5928099469747889762

[sms]

On 11/24/2015 1:57 PM, Doug Landau wrote:
>
> How come nobody ever says steel is real anymore?
>

Everyone knows it, no need to keep repeating it.

[avag...@gmail.com]

CARBON IS ORGANIC

[avag...@gmail.com]

CARBON IS ORGANIC

ALUMINUM CAUSES ALZHEIMERS

https://goo.gl/3JMDhf

[avag...@gmail.com]

https://www.google.com/#q=number+of+bicycles+by+frame+material+steel+carbon+fiber+aluminum&start=0

[Jakob Krieger]

- Doug Landau / Tue, 24 Nov 2015 22:57:30 +0100

> How come nobody ever says steel is real anymore?

Because new aluminium welding machines made alloy the
material of choice.


jk



--
no sig

[avag...@gmail.com]

right. manufacturing costs.

but what we're looking at are numbers of frames sold per type in our category not Walmart.

or numbers in the RV Carry category.

Or total xmass sales...

or ?

There is a trade journal listing such data but I doahn have one.

I would imagine no rust low cost goes a long way here.

[avag...@gmail.com]

http://pelotonmagazine.com/wisdom/materials-and-construction-part-i/

[John B.]

On Mon, 30 Nov 2015 02:18:39 +0100, "Jakob Krieger" <j...@dashdotcom.de>
wrote:

But aluminum welding dates back to about 1944 for GTAW and even
earlier for oxy-acetylene welding.
--

Cheers,

John B.

[sms]

I recall Sheldon and Mike J. talking about the move to aluminum. Mike
was saying that steel frames were much more labor intensive to build
because of less automation in the production and that manufacturers
realized that by using thicker wall aluminum the higher material cost
was offset by the lack of a need to heat treat the aluminum. The frame
welds got uglier as the tubing got thicker, but that was of little
concern to most buyers. In one speech that Sheldon gave to a recumbent
group he was saying that the cost of an aluminum frame from a factory in
Taiwan was $8, while a steel frame was about 3x that cost. Now that the
frame production has moved to China, it may be nominally less, but
there's so little manual labor that probably not a lot less.

Once the designers realized what they had to do to make aluminum usable
no more Vitus diameter tubing, greater wall thickness, and replaceable
derailleur hangers that bend before the frame breaks, the cost savings
was irresistible. They sold it to consumers with the promise of lower
weight, and it was true that a cheap aluminum frame, even with the
larger diameter, thicker, tubing, weighed less than a cheap steel frame.
There was a loss in long term durability but that was covered with a
"lifetime warranty" with the knowledge that most original owners would
be unlikely to break the frame, and replacing a few of Jay's frames
would be well worth the cost savings.

[jbeattie]

I broke a bunch of steel frames, too. They were not warrantied for life. I repaired one a few times, doing the brazing myself -- but the paint job still cost $100 (cheap powder coat). I don't know what the failure rate is for modern TIG'd lightweight steel frames.

IMO, Cannondale started the aluminum revolution by producing a hand-made frame with large diameter tubes that was stiffer and lighter than steel. That made a big difference to me because in a 63cm frame, an equivalently stiff steel frame weighed a ton. Klein was small production and expensive, and Alan and Vitus were like noodles in large frame sizes. Later iterations of the original Cannondale frame also came with longer top tubes than typical Euro frames in large sizes. And they were relatively cheap and available.

Cannondale sputtered along the way, but the CAAD 9 I just gave to my son was far better than any steel frame I ever owned and just as good as CF in terms of ride quality. And if that frame breaks, its back to the shop for warranty replacement.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Duane]

My first Cannondale with the big ass tubes was definitely lighter than
what I was riding. But it was so hard on my joints that I traded it in
for my Bianchi Volpe with a cro moly steel lugged frame. Ok, the 135
psi tires probably didn't help either but I had road tires from the era
on the Bianchi as well.

[sms]

On 11/30/2015 7:31 AM, Duane wrote:

<snip>

> My first Cannondale with the big ass tubes was definitely lighter than
> what I was riding. But it was so hard on my joints that I traded it in
> for my Bianchi Volpe with a cro moly steel lugged frame. Ok, the 135
> psi tires probably didn't help either but I had road tires from the era
> on the Bianchi as well.

Yeah, all the experts agree that CroMo is better in that regard.

[Lou Holtman]

In what regard?

--
Lou

[AMuzi]

OK, I'm anointing myself 'expert' for these purposes.

There are stiff and also compliant frame designs of all
materials. The host of other variables dwarf material, which
is not in itself decisive.

As a small example, as many people look to first-gen Alans
and say 'aluminum is too noodly and soft' as invoke USA
built Cannondales and opine, 'aluminum is too stiff and
harsh'. Both cannot be correct if material alone were
determinative of ride quality.

[Lou Holtman]

Right. You know that, I know that and I would expect that most people know
that by now. Still there are some dinosaures that believe that a steel
frame is more comfortable by default. Don't they know that steel is 3 times
as stiff as aluminum, by default?

--
Lou

[James]

On 01/12/15 01:24, jbeattie wrote:

>
> I broke a bunch of steel frames, too. They were not warrantied for
> life. I repaired one a few times, doing the brazing myself -- but the
> paint job still cost $100 (cheap powder coat). I don't know what the
> failure rate is for modern TIG'd lightweight steel frames.

Mine is of almost (Tange make some tubes at 0.35mm) the thinnest walled
steel tubing available. 0.38mm in the centre section. The TIG'd frame
has already done over 60,000km.

>
> IMO, Cannondale started the aluminum revolution by producing a
> hand-made frame with large diameter tubes that was stiffer and
> lighter than steel. That made a big difference to me because in a
> 63cm frame, an equivalently stiff steel frame weighed a ton.

I really don't know how many cms my frame is, but I am a little over
6'3" tall, so the frame is large. The frame alone (no forks) weighs
about 1.7kg, and due to the oversize diameter tubes it is the stiffest
frame I've ridden. I hate CR rub on the FD.

A friend is about my height and build. He had a titanium frame built.
It is a few hundred grams lighter, but not as stiff - though also using
oversize tubes.

I had an aluminium frame made for me by a local manufacturer who wanted
to see how long it lasted _without_ being properly heat treated
(6061-T6). It lasted about a year before cracking. It was quite stiff
too, and probably weighs about the same. I don't know off hand. It is
repaired now (free of charge), but last time I rode it was about 15
years ago.

--
JS

[sms]

On 11/30/2015 11:37 AM, Lou Holtman wrote:

<snip>

> Right. You know that, I know that and I would expect that most people know
> that by now. Still there are some dinosaures that believe that a steel
> frame is more comfortable by default. Don't they know that steel is 3 times
> as stiff as aluminum, by default?

What you don't understand is that it's not the inherent stiffness of the
allow, it's the tube diameter, the wall thickness, and the geometry,
that contribute to how soft or stiff the frame is.

[Lou Holtman]

It was a joke. It is my job to understand stiffness. My employer pays me
good money for that the last 35 years.

--
Lou

[Doug Landau]

> What you don't understand is that it's not the inherent stiffness of the
> allow, it's the tube diameter, the wall thickness, and the geometry,
> that contribute to how soft or stiff the frame is.

Certainly not for lack of reading it here. This has to be the most oft-proffered bit of unassailably-vague isms expressed here; repeated by all, and challenged by none.

[Doug Landau]

Who is your employer, Lou, and what would he say if asked your title?

[Clive George]

Hugh Hefner? :-)

[Lou Holtman]

Here I spend a lot of my time as a mechanical designer in the R&D
department.

http://global.oce.com/oce-innovation/home.aspx


--
Lou

[Tim McNamara]

And fails to take into account the much more vertically compliant
tires.

[John B.]

I'm not sure that reality is allowed here :-)
--

Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Mon, 30 Nov 2015 13:18:29 -0800 (PST), Doug Landau
<doug....@gmail.com> wrote:

>

Ignored by many :-)

In thinking back to all the arguments about frame stiffness I can't
remember ever seeing any sort of actual mechanical test performed on a
bike frame. Say, "supporting a frame on it's dropouts a load of 500
lbs on the bottom bracket resulted in a deflection of XYZ.
--

Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Mon, 30 Nov 2015 06:07:38 -0800, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
wrote:

All this sounds very logical but I'm not sure how much reality is
involved. Why is an aluminum frame cheaper to produce?

Cutting frame tubes can be automated and cutting an aluminum tube is
not more then seconds faster then cutting steel. Welding a steel tube
and welding an aluminum tube is essentially the same speed if
automated. Where does the lower cost come from?

And is it really cheaper? Or are bicycle costs based largely on "what
the market will bear" rather then on what it costs to produce them?
After all a steel frame "Walmart" bike sells for a significantly
cheaper price then a "TREK' bike although they may both have a steel
frame.
--

Cheers,

John B.

[Duane]

I wasn't intending any sweeping generalizations about AL frames. Just
saying that the Cannondale I had in the mid 90s was hard on my joints so I
replaced it with a bike with a cro-moly frame. I haven't owned an AL frame
since and make no claims of expertise.



--
duane

[Doug Landau]

> > Certainly not for lack of reading it here. This has to be the most
> > oft-proffered bit of unassailably-vague isms expressed here; repeated
> > by all, and challenged by none.
>
> And fails to take into account the much more vertically compliant
> tires.

Yeah! And the horizontal compliance that is experienced as vertical compliance by the foot.

[Frank Krygowski]

For a short while long ago, _Bicycling_ magazine published such data on
(almost?) every bike frame it tested. As I recall, they had a huge and
very rigid framework constructed, into which the tested bike frame would
be fitted. Various dial indicators measured flex in various directions
upon application of static loads.

Then they stopped doing that. I suppose various explanations are
plausible. Maybe the differences weren't significant. Maybe readers
just weren't interested. Maybe advertisers raised a stink about
evidence that their magic bikes weren't magic. Maybe they needed more
room for the type of articles they do today - "Get Great-Looking Legs!"
"Gran Fondo Fashion Show!" "Gear YOU Need for Your Next Ride!"

I think it was just part of the transition from _Bicycling_ to _Buycycing_.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Sir Ridesalot]

i had a late 1980s - early 1990s Cannondale that was supposed to be a touring bike. It had sidepull brake calipers and could NOT be fitted with 30mm tires. Riding that thing long distances was like having someone on either side of you punching you in the kidneys. That was with just 110 psi in the tires but on roads with cracks running across the surface. i too sold that bike and was turned off of fat tube aluminium ally frames. my tange Infinity frameset with the exact same wheel and tires (they were borrowed from the Cannondale)was a pleasure to ride on those exact same roads.

Regarding repairing steel, you can often buy an inexpensive new steel frame from places like Bike Nashbar or a used bike (from Craigslist or Kijiji)for the cost of replacing a steel frame tube and new paint job.

Cheers

[Sir Ridesalot]

On Monday, November 30, 2015 at 10:05:50 PM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 11/30/2015 7:59 PM, John B. wrote:
> > On Mon, 30 Nov 2015 13:18:29 -0800 (PST), Doug Landau
> > <doug....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>> What you don't understand is that it's not the inherent stiffness of the
> >>> allow, it's the tube diameter, the wall thickness, and the geometry,
> >>> that contribute to how soft or stiff the frame is.
> >>
> >> Certainly not for lack of reading it here. This has to be the most oft-proffered bit of unassailably-vague isms expressed here; repeated by all, and challenged by none.
> >
> > Ignored by many :-)
> >
> > In thinking back to all the arguments about frame stiffness I can't
> > remember ever seeing any sort of actual mechanical test performed on a
> > bike frame. Say, "supporting a frame on it's dropouts a load of 500
> > lbs on the bottom bracket resulted in a deflection of XYZ.
>
> For a short while long ago, _Bicycling_ magazine published such data on
> (almost?) every bike frame it tested. As I recall, they had a huge and
> very rigid framework constructed, into which the tested bike frame would
> be fitted. Various dial indicators measured flex in various directions
> upon application of static loads.
>

Snipped
> - Frank Krygowski

IIRC the name of that test rig was the TARANTULA.

Cheers

[Frank Krygowski]

On 11/30/2015 10:08 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
>
>
> i had a late 1980s - early 1990s Cannondale that was supposed to be a touring bike. It had sidepull brake calipers and could NOT be fitted with 30mm tires. Riding that thing long distances was like having someone on either side of you punching you in the kidneys. That was with just 110 psi in the tires but on roads with cracks running across the surface. i too sold that bike and was turned off of fat tube aluminium ally frames. my tange Infinity frameset with the exact same wheel and tires (they were borrowed from the Cannondale)was a pleasure to ride on those exact same roads.

And just so people hear the other side of the argument: The two bikes I
put the most miles on are a 1980s Cannondale touring bike (designed for
fully loaded touring, came with racks, fenders, triple crank, etc.) and
an ancient steel Raleigh. I have essentially the same tires and similar
wheels on both bikes.

I can't detect any difference in ride harshness between the two bikes.
Perhaps I'm just not perceptive enough.

I do like the rigidity of the Cannondale's bottom bracket, and that it
lacks the slight shimmy tendency of both that Raleigh and another
Reynolds 531 bike I own. That's especially true when heavily loaded.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

Yep, that's what they called it.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[avag...@gmail.com]

Lou

whatever ok, but the dang al frames make my teeth hurt

[James]

Apparently it is something you have to feel, like religion and beliefs.

--
JS

[James]

Renovo did some nice stiffness tests of theirs and others frames,
comparing wood, metal and CFRP. They've updated their site now, and I
cannot see the test data.

--
JS

[avag...@gmail.com]

Apparently it is something you have to feel, like religion and beliefs.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

gnaw doahn weight the 'question'

subjectivity/objectivity .....ask the timer/energy loss

I began on steel, aluminum feels harsh. tinny yet light*. But lightness has no edge on harsh for me. For Beattie yes.

The first time bike byer knows not steel so whatever Al is it is and no questions asked further.

So the masses get Al on the plate and that's the story 'ceptin a few going on to CF/Ti a few....3% ?

* the harsh tinny Al frames are LBS frames tuned far tighter than my steels.

[avag...@gmail.com]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

further, the effect tween steel and Al is beyond structural materials analysis...runs to total perceptual response eg sound I and beyond hearing range, visceral response to vibration..even the transmission of 'noise' into the environment and that reverb back.

[John B.]

I think that you've just come up with a new battle cry :-)

"Why bicycle when you can buycycle so much easier. Without raising a
sweat, even."
--

Cheers,

John B.

[AMuzi]

On 11/30/2015 9:24 PM, avag...@gmail.com wrote:
> Lou
>
> whatever ok, but the dang al frames make my teeth hurt
>

try it with less sugar.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[jbeattie]

On Monday, November 30, 2015 at 12:43:03 PM UTC-8, James wrote:
> On 01/12/15 01:24, jbeattie wrote:
>
> >
> > I broke a bunch of steel frames, too. They were not warrantied for
> > life. I repaired one a few times, doing the brazing myself -- but the
> > paint job still cost $100 (cheap powder coat). I don't know what the
> > failure rate is for modern TIG'd lightweight steel frames.
>
> Mine is of almost (Tange make some tubes at 0.35mm) the thinnest walled
> steel tubing available. 0.38mm in the centre section. The TIG'd frame
> has already done over 60,000km.
>
> >
> > IMO, Cannondale started the aluminum revolution by producing a
> > hand-made frame with large diameter tubes that was stiffer and
> > lighter than steel. That made a big difference to me because in a
> > 63cm frame, an equivalently stiff steel frame weighed a ton.
>
> I really don't know how many cms my frame is, but I am a little over
> 6'3" tall, so the frame is large. The frame alone (no forks) weighs
> about 1.7kg, and due to the oversize diameter tubes it is the stiffest
> frame I've ridden. I hate CR rub on the FD.
>
> A friend is about my height and build. He had a titanium frame built.
> It is a few hundred grams lighter, but not as stiff - though also using
> oversize tubes.
>
> I had an aluminium frame made for me by a local manufacturer who wanted
> to see how long it lasted _without_ being properly heat treated
> (6061-T6). It lasted about a year before cracking. It was quite stiff
> too, and probably weighs about the same. I don't know off hand. It is
> repaired now (free of charge), but last time I rode it was about 15
> years ago.

My old SP frames were plenty stiff, they were just heavy -- and not as stiff at the BB as the early Cannondales. The more modern Cannondales with the highly shaped tubes are probably less stiff in some respects than my old steel frames, but more stiff through the BB (and a lot lighter). Anyway, you can get practically any "ride feel" you want from any material. The big differences will be in weight and fatigue resistance/failure rate.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Frank Krygowski]

Regarding frame material and design, "total perception" and "sound" and
such:

On one hand, I'm sure that an aluminum frame can sound different than a
steel frame while riding. With musical instruments, people can detect
the difference in overtones or harmonics to tell (say) a guitar from an
octave mandolin playing the same note. Or between a Martin and a
Gibson, for that matter. Perhaps one can "hear" whether they're on
aluminum or steel.

I suppose one may also be able to "feel" a difference in harmonics in
one's hands on the bars. On the other hand, I really doubt that those
differences amount to real differences in comfort. I think it's
probable that the frequencies involved are far too high.

It may be that what's happening is purely psychological. As I've
mentioned before, the first folding bike I bought - very used, very
cheap, very badly designed - had tons of squeaks and creaks. It rode
very poorly. But after I tracked down every little noise and oiled it
away, the bike immediately _seemed_ to ride better. No mechanical
difference; just a big psychological one. (And gosh, think of how much
better that bike would be if I painted it red!)

Similarly, a few years ago there was a big debate in this forum about
the value (or lack of value) of "Zerts" flexible inserts in certain
Specialized frames and forks. Someone pointed to a graph published by
Specialized that, by golly, did show attenuation of vibration at a
certain frequency! But it turned out the frequency was about 440 Hz - a
sort of middle "A" on a musical scale. Could your butt really detect a
musical note? If it could, would it make you more comfortable? Very
doubtful.

Two of my friends bought Zerts equipped bikes. When asked about them,
one flatly said she could detect no difference at all. The other just
shrugged and said he didn't know.

Is steel real, is aluminum harsh, is titanium incomparable and carbon
fiber magic? I'd be more likely to believe that if we had data from
double blind tests - and if the testers used ear plugs.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[jbeattie]

CF can be stiff and light, but I don't buy all the stuff about its magical road-smoothing ability, except where the frame design actually allows movement of the frame tubes as with the Trek Domane. CF might suppress some HF road buzz, and its acoustical qualities are certainly different, but you whack a pot hole or ride over rough pavement or trail with high pressure tires, CF does not magically swallow-up the impacts.

-- Jay Beattie.

[sms]

On 12/1/2015 8:33 AM, jbeattie wrote:

<snip>

> ... but you whack a pot hole or ride over rough pavement or trail with high pressure tires, CF does not magically swallow-up the impacts.

Sure it does. But only once.

[Doug Landau]

> ... it turned out the frequency was about 440 Hz - a

> sort of middle "A" on a musical scale. Could your butt really detect a
> musical note? If it could, would it make you more comfortable? Very
> doubtful.

Of course it could, and of course it would, if it were truly an A. A is a very soothing note. But were it sharp or flat, it would make you _less_ comfortable.

[Doug Landau]

> CF can be stiff and light, but I don't buy all the stuff about its magical road-smoothing ability

Ah well this context allows us to understand your previous comment that your aluminum cannondale rides as nice as carbon.

[jbeattie]

On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 10:11:37 AM UTC-8, Doug Landau wrote:
> > CF can be stiff and light, but I don't buy all the stuff about its magical road-smoothing ability
>
> Ah well this context allows us to understand your previous comment that your aluminum cannondale rides as nice as carbon.

In terms of shock absorption, I found very little difference between the SuperSix and the CAAD 9, notwithstanding the thinned seat stays on the SuperSix. Both have CF forks which, IMO, do have a slight smoothing effect. The SuperSix is stiffer in the BB and the front-end, which is generally a good thing. The SuperSix is more dead-feeling than the CAAD 9, and it tracks better on steep downhill, but not a lot. The CAAD 9 was more comfortable in some ways and for reasons that are not entirely clear to me, but it could be due to the 25mm Conti 4Seasons and a slightly more limber front-end and BB. Both are great bikes. I've ridden other CF bikes that were even stiffer, including my brother's Tarmac.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Doug Landau]

On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 2:36:47 PM UTC-8, jbeattie wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 10:11:37 AM UTC-8, Doug Landau wrote:
> > > CF can be stiff and light, but I don't buy all the stuff about its magical road-smoothing ability
> >
> > Ah well this context allows us to understand your previous comment that your aluminum cannondale rides as nice as carbon.
>
> In terms of shock absorption, I found very little difference between the SuperSix and the CAAD 9, notwithstanding the thinned seat stays on the SuperSix. Both have CF forks which, IMO, do have a slight smoothing effect.

Ahh, the truth comes out!

>CF does not magically swallow-up the impacts.

It sure does sound like it is doing so, at least sometimes. My first CF bike, a kestrel 200, made no bang when hitting a pothole, unlike any bike I've ever ridden before or since. It just went "fft". (It was amazingly silent all the time.) My next CF bike, a Trek 5200, did not do that. It made the usual "Bang!"

dkl

[Frank Krygowski]

I don't think sound is necessarily closely correlated with impact
absorption, or with ride quality in general.

It affects us psychologically, though. I'd not be surprised if it were
proven that certain bike sounds make us think a bike rode more harshly.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Doug Landau]

On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 4:31:07 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 12/1/2015 5:49 PM, Doug Landau wrote:
> > On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 2:36:47 PM UTC-8, jbeattie wrote:
> >>
> >
> >> CF does not magically swallow-up the impacts.
> >
> > It sure does sound like it is doing so, at least sometimes. My first CF bike, a kestrel 200, made no bang when hitting a pothole, unlike any bike I've ever ridden before or since. It just went "fft". (It was amazingly silent all the time.) My next CF bike, a Trek 5200, did not do that. It made the usual "Bang!"
>
> I don't think sound is necessarily closely correlated with impact
> absorption, or with ride quality in general.

Is the sound not, in fact, a partial transformation of the energy of the impact? Why would the absorption or lack thereof NOT be expressed in the sound?

[James]

A quick and dirty test performed by a frame builder I saw, was to lift
the front of the bike off the ground maybe 30-50cm, and drop it. The
extent to which the fork ends move forward is affected by the fork and
frame front end stiffness.

Apparently those skilled and experienced in the art can tell if a frame
and fork is very rigid or more compliant. Also the decay in resonant
buzz might give an indication of damping.

It's a bit better than tossing chicken bones on the ground, and perhaps
a empirical way to guestimate differences between similar types of bicycles?

--
JS

[Frank Krygowski]

Well, to begin with: If you're envisioning the sound as stealing away
some impact energy ("a partial transformation of the energy...") then a
quiet bike would imply _more_ impact going to the rider!

But I think sound and impact absorption are pretty well disconnected.
For example, it takes very little energy to make a very noticeable
sound. As I've noted in chain lubrication discussions, some riders
think a chain squeak absolutely must be slowing them down tremendously;
but a cricket's muscles are microscopic, yet they can out-chirp even the
driest chain.

Then there's the matter of frequency. Sound frequencies are pretty
high. I think the accelerations and velocities involved in the impact
of a road bump are much lower. I don't think those correlate well with
sounds we hear.

And there are influences that can amplify sounds but obviously have
nothing directly to do with impact. Radiating area (as with a speaker
cone, or a larger diameter bike tube) is one. The presence of
microscopic "slack," such as can cause creaking in stems, is another.

So again, I don't think sound quality necessarily correlates very well
with impact absorption.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[avag...@gmail.com]

Frank Krygowski REALLY Frank...you agreed with me then negated the subjectives importance with a wave of a wand.....

as for the CF, if EVERYONE SEZ IT DOES THEN IT DOES weather or not it does...like the Domino Theory

[avag...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 6:52:15 PM UTC-7, avag...@gmail.com wrote:
> Frank Krygowski REALLY Frank...you agreed with me then negated the subjectives importance with a wave of a wand.....
>
> as for the CF, if EVERYONE SEZ IT DOES THEN IT DOES weather or not it does...like the Domino Theory

SSERIOUS;Y..with CF asking what to a CF rider spent $4000 n he'll reply like he's NNNNnnning with the Dallas Cheerleaders.....

[avag...@gmail.com]

nnnnnnnnnnnghghgh getting feedback there as I'm eating dinner outside Dallas...

[John B.]

On Tue, 1 Dec 2015 10:30:57 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 12/1/2015 12:50 AM, avag...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Monday, November 30, 2015 at 10:46:24 PM UTC-7, avag...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Apparently it is something you have to feel, like religion and beliefs.
>>>
>>>
>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>
>>> gnaw doahn weight the 'question'
>>>
>>> subjectivity/objectivity .....ask the timer/energy loss
>>>
>>> I began on steel, aluminum feels harsh. tinny yet light*. But lightness has no edge on harsh for me. For Beattie yes.
>>>
>>> The first time bike byer knows not steel so whatever Al is it is and no questions asked further.
>>>
>>> So the masses get Al on the plate and that's the story 'ceptin a few going on to CF/Ti a few....3% ?
>>>
>>> * the harsh tinny Al frames are LBS frames tuned far tighter than my steels.
>>
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>> further, the effect tween steel and Al is beyond structural materials analysis...runs to total perceptual response eg sound I and beyond hearing range, visceral response to vibration..even the transmission of 'noise' into the environment and that reverb back.
>
>Regarding frame material and design, "total perception" and "sound" and
>such:
>
>On one hand, I'm sure that an aluminum frame can sound different than a
>steel frame while riding. With musical instruments, people can detect
>the difference in overtones or harmonics to tell (say) a guitar from an
>octave mandolin playing the same note. Or between a Martin and a
>Gibson, for that matter. Perhaps one can "hear" whether they're on
>aluminum or steel.

I believe that is correct that different metals "sound different". At
least I never saw L. Armstrong playing an aluminum trumpet :-)

Wasn't there a report in one of the cycling magazines about a bloke
who had a frame maker make up two different frames. If I remember
correctly, one with the best tubes and one with the general run of the
mill tubes. The only identification was one frame painted one color
and the other frame painted a different color.

As I remember he had a number of people ride and compare the two
frames and apparently no one could tell which frame was better. He
even mentioned that a friend, a very experienced rider, felt that the
cheap frame was the better ride :-)

Based on what I see every day I think that most people equate price
with quality - "high price = high quality", and while quality goods
are usually higher priced the price alone is not an indicator of
quality.
--

Cheers,

John B.

[avag...@gmail.com]

....................................

Based on what I see every day I think that most people equate price
with quality - "high price = high quality", and while quality goods
are usually higher priced the price alone is not an indicator of
quality.

.......................

SO Mr. S.....how many times have you watched Armstrong play trumpet and when have you examined the the instrument ?

off course 9/10 $$$ = more quality....again market forces...no five year plan

butbutbut on the comparison ... somewhat invalid in real time ownership where riding is over time not over trial.

[Duane]

I've seen Louis play a bunch but only a cornet. I've seen a couple of
his cornets up close and they definitely weren't aluminum.

Never saw him play trumpet except maybe on tv once.

[(PeteCresswell)]

Haven't read every post in this thread, but two properties of steel seem
to give it an edge in certain circumstances:

- Anybody can braze steel to repair it.

- If a frame is subject to abrasion - as in laying in a vehicle's
trunk for long periods, or bumping up against other frames
on a carrying rack I would think that steel is less subject
to damage.
--
Pete Cresswell

[Frank Krygowski]

On 12/2/2015 9:53 AM, avag...@gmail.com wrote:
> ....................................
>
> Based on what I see every day I think that most people equate price
> with quality - "high price = high quality", and while quality goods
> are usually higher priced the price alone is not an indicator of
> quality.
>
> .......................
>
> SO Mr. S.....how many times have you watched Armstrong play trumpet and when have you examined the the instrument ?
>
> off course 9/10 $$$ = more quality...

So, pertinent to discussions of price, music, quality:

http://www.thestrad.com/cpt-latests/blind-tested-soloists-unable-to-tell-stradivarius-violins-from-modern-instruments/

The same sort of thing has been found with fine wines:
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/jun/23/wine-tasting-junk-science-analysis

And yes, as John vaguely remembered, there were similar results with
bike frames, done by "professional" road testers back in the steel frame
days. (At one time, someone had posted photos of the article on
TinyPic, but it's gone.)

Despite all this, we're supposed to believe that everyday enthusiasts
can detect the thousandth-of-inches difference in bike frames' vertical
deflection? They can detect that even though the deflection of saddles,
seatposts, wheels and especially tires are hundreds of times greater?

--
- Frank Krygowski

[sms]

Hmm, while aluminum may have some undesirable properties in terms of its
fatigue limit, I can't imagine that some minor contact with other
bicycles on a rack is going to damage it. The most commonly encountered
issue with aluminum frames was solved by using replaceable derailleur
hangers.

With carbon fiber, new types of carrying racks had to be designed, ones
that do not hold the bike in by the frame.

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per sms:

>Hmm, while aluminum may have some undesirable properties in terms of its
>fatigue limit, I can't imagine that some minor contact with other
>bicycles on a rack is going to damage it. The most commonly encountered
>issue with aluminum frames was solved by using replaceable derailleur
>hangers.

Maybe bikes are made out of tougher stuff than the alu boat trailer I
used to have - where a swinging piece of line actually started to wear a
hole in one of the frame members.
--
Pete Cresswell

[AMuzi]

Race car bits (panels, chassis members, valve covers etc)
are neatly cut through by vibrating stainless Aeroquip,
which is effectively a power saw when installed haphazardly.

It's rare to see anything deeper than paint abrasion on
bicycle frames. Not never, just rare.

[Doug Landau]

Not innertubes! Even the rubber band that they come packed in will wear a hole in them.

[John B.]

On Wed, 02 Dec 2015 10:45:26 -0500, "(PeteCresswell)" <x...@y.Invalid>
wrote:

>Haven't read every post in this thread, but two properties of steel seem
>to give it an edge in certain circumstances:
>
>- Anybody can braze steel to repair it.
>

I'm not sure that I can agree with that all encompassing statement
"Anybody". After all some people can't seem to drill a simple hole in
a bicycle frame, say nothing of brazing it with all the complications
of heating device, brazing rods and fluxes, to say nothing of the
necessary preparation before brazing.

>- If a frame is subject to abrasion - as in laying in a vehicle's
> trunk for long periods, or bumping up against other frames
> on a carrying rack I would think that steel is less subject
> to damage.
--

Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

I can't comment on the sensitivity of the posteriors of various highly
skilled experts but for myself, I can't really notice much of a
difference between frames in the way of bump absorbing. Certainly not
as much as I notice the difference in tire diameters and inflation
pressures.
--

Cheers,

John B.

[jbeattie]

Modern frames with different carbon lay-ups can result in similar-weight frames that ride differently -- which I notice mostly while sprinting or climbing. My brother's S-Works Tarmac is stiffer in the front end than my SuperSix. Both are similarly stiff through the BB. Assuming all else is equal (tires, rider position, saddle, wheels, etc.), I couldn't tell the difference between the frames while riding on flat pavement. The S-Works Tarmac frame cost probably twice as much as the SuperSix frame.

I was wandering around a bike shop in Santa Rosa during a visit over the Thanksgiving weekend and saw a $22K McLaren Specialized Tarmac. http://www.specialized.com/us/en/sworksmclaren I knew it was the best, so I bought it -- along with some bar end streamers and fenders. I got bell, too. The salesman also convinced me that I needed the bike, even though I was looking for a three-speed beach cruiser.

BTW, I can tell the difference in sound between trumpets based on bell and bore size and weight (and maybe bell material). I can't tell based on price, though. Some of the super-expensive trumpets made here in Portland by Dave Monette (and played by people like Wynton) have a distinctive dark sound, IMO. http://www.monette.net/newsite/ But it's not the price that makes the difference, it's the material and design. However, price alone can make a difference if you shove $100 bills in the bell.


-- Jay Beattie.

[Doug Landau]

I think we all notice it, but are referring to it incorrectly. I think we all feel the way different frames reflect bumps, not absorb them. And I disagree with Frank's comment that the sound one hears is not that. I think it is specifically that, at least in part. A tuning fork is an example of this. Were it stiffer or softer the tone would be different, and before that the absorption would be different. The tuning for being the best shape for making noise, the noise, the absorption, and the reflection are all very much directly-proportional.

[sms]

On 12/2/2015 4:43 PM, jbeattie wrote:

> BTW, I can tell the difference in sound between trumpets based on bell and bore size and weight (and maybe bell material). I can't tell based on price, though. Some of the super-expensive trumpets made here in Portland by Dave Monette (and played by people like Wynton) have a distinctive dark sound, IMO. http://www.monette.net/newsite/ But it's not the price that makes the difference, it's the material and design. However, price alone can make a difference if you shove $100 bills in the bell.

My son's high school band director has encouraged students to procure
better quality instruments than the "student quality instruments" sold
by the musical instrument companies like Yamaha. The difference in sound
quality is discernible, especially to the judges at competitions. We had
started him off with a used Yamaha sax and after a while it was clear
that he needed something better. He also had to audition when applying
for college and there is no way he could have done that on a low quality
horn.

The better quality horns definitely cost more, but at MSRPs over $3000
they are not so different in sound, it's the sub-$1000 horns that are
not great, either in sound quality, or mechanical quality. Fixing
woodwind instruments is costly and a low quality instrument tends to
need a lot of repairs.

The other big difference is mouthpieces. a high end mouthpiece can cost
hundreds of dollars. This guy's mouthpieces are famous,
<http://www.rastmusic.com/mouthpieces-all-custom-handfinished/>.

[John B.]

On Wed, 2 Dec 2015 17:33:34 -0800 (PST), Doug Landau
<doug....@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>I think we all notice it, but are referring to it incorrectly. I think we all feel the way different frames reflect bumps, not absorb them. And I disagree with Frank's comment that the sound one hears is not that. I think it is specifically that, at least in part. A tuning fork is an example of this. Were it stiffer or softer the tone would be different, and before that the absorption would be different. The tuning for being the best shape for making noise, the noise, the absorption, and the reflection are all very much directly-proportional.

I'm not sure about the analogy of the tuning fork. Out of curiosity I
took a 700c front fork and hit it with a hammer. No ringing tone like
a tuning fork, just a klunk when the hammer hit the side of the fork.
--

Cheers,

John B.

[sms]

I tried that on my friend's CF fork and the hammer was undamaged.

[AMuzi]

For a quality steel fork, especially with a cast crown, a
smack on one of the tips will ring nicely. That's easily
noticed when trying to get swarf out of a drianhole for example.

[jbeattie]

Fred Rast was at SJSU at the same time as me! He probably studied with Clem Hutchinson and sat down section from my sister, who was a killer clarinetist. I was a music major for like a day and then decided that wasn't the direction I wanted to go. I stopped playing and then started up again later.

Better sounding instruments that play in tune across the scale are sometimes more difficult to play. Playing with a hard reed produces a lot of squeaking for a beginner, and a big-bore orchestral horn is just plain exhausting. But once you are up to the instrument, you can get much better sound. And at that point, you can justify the purchase price.

The same is true with bikes -- a lightweight, responsive bike is not for everyone. It's not fun, and its a waste of money. If you're up to the bike, though, its a blast, and you go faster. If your just riding for fun -- or playing in the marching band -- then a cheaper more durable instrument is in order.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Duane]

Not a bad analogy.

[Frank Krygowski]

The one I just tried rang at 182 Hz (F#), with overtones at roughly 500
and about 1500 Hz. Very nice bell-like tone.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 12/2/2015 7:43 PM, jbeattie wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 8:47:16 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 12/2/2015 9:53 AM, avag...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> ....................................
>>>
>>> Based on what I see every day I think that most people equate price
>>> with quality - "high price = high quality", and while quality goods
>>> are usually higher priced the price alone is not an indicator of
>>> quality.
>>>
>>> .......................
>>>
>>> SO Mr. S.....how many times have you watched Armstrong play trumpet and when have you examined the the instrument ?
>>>
>>> off course 9/10 $$$ = more quality...
>>
>> So, pertinent to discussions of price, music, quality:
>>
>> http://www.thestrad.com/cpt-latests/blind-tested-soloists-unable-to-tell-stradivarius-violins-from-modern-instruments/
>>
>> The same sort of thing has been found with fine wines:
>> http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/jun/23/wine-tasting-junk-science-analysis
>>
>> And yes, as John vaguely remembered, there were similar results with
>> bike frames, done by "professional" road testers back in the steel frame
>> days. (At one time, someone had posted photos of the article on
>> TinyPic, but it's gone.)
>>
>> Despite all this, we're supposed to believe that everyday enthusiasts
>> can detect the thousandth-of-inches difference in bike frames' vertical
>> deflection? They can detect that even though the deflection of saddles,
>> seatposts, wheels and especially tires are hundreds of times greater?
>
> Modern frames with different carbon lay-ups can result in similar-weight frames that ride differently -- which I notice mostly while sprinting or climbing. My brother's S-Works Tarmac is stiffer in the front end than my SuperSix. Both are similarly stiff through the BB. Assuming all else is equal (tires, rider position, saddle, wheels, etc.), I couldn't tell the difference between the frames while riding on flat pavement. The S-Works Tarmac frame cost probably twice as much as the SuperSix frame.

I certainly don't doubt that there can be significant differences in
bottom bracket stiffness and front end stiffness - i.e. torsional
stiffness of a bike frame.

But if we're talking about ride harshness, ISTM that's related to
vertical compliance. And the difference in vertical compliance of bike
frames is, I think, undetectable by the human butt. That's even more
true when that butt is suspended on a very flexible saddle mounted on a
somewhat flexible seatpost and the entire bike is on very flexible
pneumatic tires.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 12/2/2015 8:33 PM, Doug Landau wrote:
>
> I think we all notice it, but are referring to it incorrectly. I think we all feel the way different frames reflect bumps, not absorb them. And I disagree with Frank's comment that the sound one hears is not that. I think it is specifically that, at least in part. A tuning fork is an example of this. Were it stiffer or softer the tone would be different, and before that the absorption would be different. The tuning for being the best shape for making noise, the noise, the absorption, and the reflection are all very much directly-proportional.

There can certainly be differences in sound; but that doesn't prove that
there are differences in shock absorption.

Your tuning fork is probably vibrating at A 440. That's 440 cycles per
second. In other words, in about two thousandths of a second, the legs
of the tuning fork have stopped moving in one direction and begun going
the opposite direction. If that frequency applied to any part of a bike
frame in motion, that mass simply wouldn't have time to move very far.

If the mass in question were, say, the seat cluster portion of the
frame, it might move upward - what? - a thousandth of an inch? Then it
would move back down. During the upward 1/1000th, it would try to push
the seatpost up; but the seatpost is a bit flexible, and would absorb
some of that motion before it passed it on to the frame of the saddle.

The saddle itself is much more flexible. A less-than-1/1000th upward
motion from the saddle clamp will cause the saddle to flex, and almost
none of that motion will transmit to the butt of the rider. He won't
feel it.

Going back to your tuning fork, it would be like trying to feel the
vibration of the tuning fork while the handle of the fork is wrapped in
foam tape, and while you're wearing mittens.

(And BTW, I'm concentrating on A 440 not only because that's the most
common tuning fork. That's also the frequency that the Specialized
"Zerts" were shown to improve in the fuzzy graph that Specialized posted
as "proof.")

For a road shock to be felt, the bike frame has to move a distance much
greater that a couple thousandths of an inch. That implies a much lower
frequency of motion, something I think would be below human hearing.
That's the type of motion that tires and saddle hope to absorb. A whack
that gets past the tires and saddle won't be absorbed by the microscopic
vertical flexibility of a bike frame, no matter what it's made of.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[avag...@gmail.com]

Tacking perceptual insensitivity onto
Inanimates ?

[jbeattie]

<snip>

Maybe your butt! Mine is magical and can tell the difference. Specialized has produced at least some testing. http://www.specialized.com/us/en/bc/microsite/fact/testing.html#/stiffness-and-vertical-compliance

I've ridden and ride a Roubaix, and it should be like a lounge chair according to the numbers, but it's not.

Also look at the stiffness numbers. Waaah. My SuperSix is not very stiff.

-- Jay Beattie.

[sms]

Maybe bike shops could expand into selling musical instruments since the
margins are very high and there is a severe shortage of such stores in
this area.

I always thought that musical instruments would be a good market for
Apple to move into. A lot could be done in terms of teaching with a
connected instrument, and the margins are at the levels that Apple
likes. They have the manufacturing connections that are needed. Apple
has also had a history of musical stuff like with Garage Band.

[Doug Landau]

> But if we're talking about ride harshness, ISTM that's related to
> vertical compliance. And the difference in vertical compliance of bike
> frames is, I think, undetectable by the human butt. That's even more
> true when that butt is suspended on a very flexible saddle mounted on a
> somewhat flexible seatpost and the entire bike is on very flexible
> pneumatic tires.

The saddle is not so flexible when the butt is upon it.

[sms]

On 12/3/2015 9:17 AM, jbeattie wrote:

<snip>

> Maybe your butt! Mine is magical and can tell the difference. Specialized has produced at least some testing. http://www.specialized.com/us/en/bc/microsite/fact/testing.html#/stiffness-and-vertical-compliance

Ask your Specialized dealer about their Assometer. Every dealer is
supposed to have purchased one from Specialized.

[Doug Landau]

>
> There can certainly be differences in sound; but that doesn't prove that
> there are differences in shock absorption.

It does in tuning forks

> Your tuning fork is probably vibrating at A 440. That's 440 cycles per
> second. In other words, in about two thousandths of a second, the legs
> of the tuning fork have stopped moving in one direction and begun going
> the opposite direction. If that frequency applied to any part of a bike
> frame in motion, that mass simply wouldn't have time to move very far.

Right. A tuning for is optimized for turning the energy of impact into sound. A trampoline is the opposite, optimized for mirroring the energy of impact. Some parts of any given bike are better than others at transforming it into sound, as evidenced by the ringy noise made by some aluminum frames.

> If the mass in question were, say, the seat cluster portion of the
> frame, it might move upward - what? - a thousandth of an inch? Then it
> would move back down. During the upward 1/1000th, it would try to push
> the seatpost up; but the seatpost is a bit flexible, and would absorb
> some of that motion before it passed it on to the frame of the saddle.

It would first absorb and then reflect it.

> The saddle itself is much more flexible. A less-than-1/1000th upward
> motion from the saddle clamp will cause the saddle to flex, and almost
> none of that motion will transmit to the butt of the rider. He won't
> feel it.

Flexible is not the same as compressable. Rubber for example is flexible but does not compress.

> Going back to your tuning fork, it would be like trying to feel the
> vibration of the tuning fork while the handle of the fork is wrapped in
> foam tape, and while you're wearing mittens.

You are not wearing mittens, and the energy is much greater from a pothole hit than from the tuning fork. You are also connected to the bike in two other places.

> For a road shock to be felt, the bike frame has to move a distance much
> greater that a couple thousandths of an inch.

You can easily feel a couple mils. Put your hand on any running machine: the hood of your car, your fridge, your computer. You can feel it vibrate even if your eye cannot detect any movement.

[Frank Krygowski]

Note that their vertical compliance numbers include the seatpost flex.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

Well, I wouldn't doubt that many saddles are somewhat less flexible when
fully loaded. IOW, the spring constant (i.e. stiffness) of a saddle can
be non-linear.

But after the tires, I'm pretty sure it's in second place as the next
most vertically flexible part of the structure between the road and the
rider's butt. (Third place goes to the seatpost.)

The important thing, I think, is that it's typically far, far more
flexible than the frame itself.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 12/3/2015 12:48 PM, Doug Landau wrote:

>> [fk:] For a road shock to be felt, the bike frame has to move a distance much

>> greater that a couple thousandths of an inch.
>
> You can easily feel a couple mils. Put your hand on any running machine: the hood of your car, your fridge, your computer. You can feel it vibrate even if your eye cannot detect any movement.

Let's use a chest-type freezer. (I choose that because it's easy to sit
on.) While it's running, sit on it. Can you really detect its tiny
vibration with your butt? If so, is it really something you'd worry about?

Now imagine that still-running freezer rolling down a road of average
roughness, being jounced about as a bicycle is. Do you think you'd
still notice the extra thousandths of an inch caused by the freezer running?

I think there is such a concept as "negligible." It applies often in
bicycling.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[avag...@gmail.com]

Jay ,

Your Robaix and theirs ? same wheels ties spokes ? to what torque ?

the entire discussion rests on the wheels or that is when wheels are discounted, the argument goes to intangibles developed thru experience not one trial with trial bikes

one poss experiment....find two equivalent steel alloy/aluminum alloy bike tubing or failing this two blocks or ? from the metal shop.

place on desk.

occasional pick up and rest on palm...

note difference

is there a different body reaction for the different samples.

then in a month or 2, cloak the samples and go blind for an ID

[Sir Ridesalot]

Freezer? Strawman since we're discussing bicycles. People can feel the vibrations from varying road surfaces and they can feel that vibration even through gloves on a padded taped handlebar. Ditto for the saddle - many can fell the difference in a saddle as tey ide over different asphalt surfaces.

Cheers

[Doug Landau]

On Thursday, December 3, 2015 at 12:02:55 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 12/3/2015 12:48 PM, Doug Landau wrote:
>
> >> [fk:] For a road shock to be felt, the bike frame has to move a distance much
> >> greater that a couple thousandths of an inch.
> >
> > You can easily feel a couple mils. Put your hand on any running machine: the hood of your car, your fridge, your computer. You can feel it vibrate even if your eye cannot detect any movement.
>
> Let's use a chest-type freezer. (I choose that because it's easy to sit
> on.) While it's running, sit on it. Can you really detect its tiny
> vibration with your butt? If so, is it really something you'd worry about?

1. Of course.
2. In all the discussions there have been on this topic, I have never seen anyone ever say anything about being worried. Where the heck did that come from?
2. The cooler is not shaped so your sitbones will support your weight, unlike the bike seat. The comparison is just silly.

> Now imagine that still-running freezer rolling down a road of average
> roughness, being jounced about as a bicycle is. Do you think you'd
> still notice the extra thousandths of an inch caused by the freezer running?

As Sir said, straw man. The vibration from the cooler does not have the same momentum as the hit from the pothole, even if the distance moved - or would have move with no damping from the rider - is the same.

[Joe Riel]

Doug Landau <doug....@gmail.com> writes:

>>
>> There can certainly be differences in sound; but that doesn't prove that
>> there are differences in shock absorption.
>
> It does in tuning forks
>
>> Your tuning fork is probably vibrating at A 440. That's 440 cycles per
>> second. In other words, in about two thousandths of a second, the legs
>> of the tuning fork have stopped moving in one direction and begun going
>> the opposite direction. If that frequency applied to any part of a bike
>> frame in motion, that mass simply wouldn't have time to move very far.
>
> Right. A tuning for is optimized for turning the energy of impact
> into sound.

Not really. It's optimized for vibrating at a specified frequency
for a reasonable duration. If it was effectively converting the
energy to sound it would be louder but wouldn't be as useful.

--
Joe Riel

[jbeattie]

Good point. The seat post on the Roubaix with that odd fold at the top is one of its comfort selling points. It's really ugly, too. The good news is that it can be removed and replaced with an ordinary 27.2mm post for those with undiscerning butts.

And how the finished bike actually feels on the road (like Gene says) will depend more on tire cross-section and pressure -- although I still think you can get some vibration absorption from a rigid CF fork, although not out-right suspension, which is good because I hate a squishy front-end. Cannondale sold the first 2.8s with Kinesis aluminum forks, and they were like riding on a pogo stick.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Frank Krygowski]

I think you and Sir are forgetting the point. I'm saying differences in
vertical frame deflection are probably just a few thousandths of an
inch. The deflection of a bike tire may be 100 times as much, and
deflection of the saddle may be 50 times as much. Given that fact, ISTM
the presence or absence of a few extra thousandths in the frame has to
be lost in the noise.

Doug, _you_ said "You can easily feel a couple mils." _You_ suggested
touching a refrigerator to detect that with your fingertips, among the
most sensitive parts of your body. I wouldn't call that a straw man
argument; it's more like a bad analogy. But it's much further removed
from bicycle reality than a freezer. After all, I merely substituted a
device one could sit on!

Trying again: Whether you're riding a freezer or a bicycle, the issue
is, can your butt really detect 1/1000" more or less deflection when
other deflections are so much greater? It's a "princess and pea"
situation.

Maybe some people are so amazingly sensitive that they can really feel
it, but I think it's more likely that those are the same people whose
bikes go faster after being painted red.

How to tell, should we really want to get scientific? A double-blind
test, of course. Remember, that's been done, albeit with a variety of
steel frames. The "expert" riders failed to tell the difference,
despite having written glowingly about the differences in the past.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Doug Landau]

> I think you and Sir are forgetting the point. I'm saying differences in
> vertical frame deflection are probably just a few thousandths of an
> inch. The deflection of a bike tire may be 100 times as much, and
> deflection of the saddle may be 50 times as much. Given that fact, ISTM
> the presence or absence of a few extra thousandths in the frame has to
> be lost in the noise.

Again, it's not the deflection we feel, I think, it's the rebound. The frame rebounds differently than the tires.

> Doug, _you_ said "You can easily feel a couple mils." _You_ suggested
> touching a refrigerator to detect that with your fingertips, among the
> most sensitive parts of your body. I wouldn't call that a straw man
> argument; it's more like a bad analogy. But it's much further removed
> from bicycle reality than a freezer. After all, I merely substituted a
> device one could sit on!

You don't need your hand you can feel the same thing without touching it at all, with your ears.

> Trying again: Whether you're riding a freezer or a bicycle, the issue
> is, can your butt really detect 1/1000" more or less deflection when
> other deflections are so much greater? It's a "princess and pea"
> situation.

Of course it can. The sound of a bang or click won't get lost in the presence of a hiss or humm, even if they are of the same pitch, and the movements of a frame part and a of tire won't blend either. ISTM.

> Maybe some people are so amazingly sensitive that they can really feel
> it, but I think it's more likely that those are the same people whose
> bikes go faster after being painted red.

The range of human ability is very wide.

[Doug Landau]

On Thursday, December 3, 2015 at 11:54:03 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 12/3/2015 12:32 PM, Doug Landau wrote:
> >
> >> But if we're talking about ride harshness, ISTM that's related to
> >> vertical compliance. And the difference in vertical compliance of bike
> >> frames is, I think, undetectable by the human butt. That's even more
> >> true when that butt is suspended on a very flexible saddle mounted on a
> >> somewhat flexible seatpost and the entire bike is on very flexible
> >> pneumatic tires.
> >
> > The saddle is not so flexible when the butt is upon it.
>
> Well, I wouldn't doubt that many saddles are somewhat less flexible when
> fully loaded. IOW, the spring constant (i.e. stiffness) of a saddle can
> be non-linear.
>
> But after the tires, I'm pretty sure it's in second place as the next
> most vertically flexible part of the structure between the road and the
> rider's butt. (Third place goes to the seatpost.)

I don't think it's flexibility that matters I think it's compressibility. With your sitbones pressing down you have preloaded the padding, and a hit that is less than the preload would simply be felt. ISTM.

[sms]

On 12/3/2015 12:46 PM, Doug Landau wrote:
> On Thursday, December 3, 2015 at 12:02:55 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:

>> Let's use a chest-type freezer. (I choose that because it's easy to sit
>> on.) While it's running, sit on it. Can you really detect its tiny
>> vibration with your butt? If so, is it really something you'd worry about?
>
> 1. Of course.
> 2. In all the discussions there have been on this topic, I have never seen anyone ever say anything about being worried. Where the heck did that come from?
> 2. The cooler is not shaped so your sitbones will support your weight, unlike the bike seat. The comparison is just silly.

Oy, you're new here huh? With Frank you'll get an agenda driven by a
toxic mix of lies, lack of knowledge, and the most bizarre analogies
that you could possibly imagine. Add in the accusation that you're
"worried" about this non-existent issue and you have been "Franked."

>> Now imagine that still-running freezer rolling down a road of average
>> roughness, being jounced about as a bicycle is. Do you think you'd
>> still notice the extra thousandths of an inch caused by the freezer running?
>
> As Sir said, straw man. The vibration from the cooler does not have the same momentum as the hit from the pothole, even if the distance moved - or would have move with no damping from the rider - is the same.

I need to now get my chest freezer out of the garage and ride it to the
Caltrain station--wearing an unmandated helmet.