Titanium ride verse CF
Mark Cleary
titanium bike ride. I have never road one and wonder the difference
between these and CF, and AL? Are there any places that carry them much
none in my lBS for sure ony AL and CF.
--
Deacon Mark Cleary
Epiphany Roman Catholic Church
Lou Holtman
> Since the thread on titanium cassettes has me thinking, how does a
> titanium bike ride. I have never road one and wonder the difference
> between these and CF, and AL? Are there any places that carry them much
> none in my lBS for sure ony AL and CF.
I have 3 Ti bikes, 3 Al bikes a CF bike and a steel bike and the ride
all wonderful and look all great. It's not what the frame is made off
it's what they have done with the material, the fit and your own fitness
what make how a bike rides. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
Lou
Nate Nagel
Wheels and tires make a big difference too. I have a crappy wheelset
and 1-1/2 good wheelsets. The difference is noticeable - the crappy
ones feel a lot less directionally stable.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
Lou Holtman
Agreed. Don't be cheap on tires I always say.
Lou
RonSonic
>Since the thread on titanium cassettes has me thinking, how does a
>titanium bike ride. I have never road one and wonder the difference
>between these and CF, and AL? Are there any places that carry them much
>none in my lBS for sure ony AL and CF.
In my part of the country you can't walk through the standard yuppie trap LBS
without tripping over a Lightspeed.
Doesn't cost crazy money to find out. These are from a former regular here:
http://www.habcycles.com/road.html Well, they're from China, he designs spec's
and inspects.
--
Oh damn. There's that annoying blog. Again. http://dumbbikeblog.blogspot.com
Lou Holtman
> On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 10:58:30 -0500, Mark Cleary <mcle...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Since the thread on titanium cassettes has me thinking, how does a
>> titanium bike ride. I have never road one and wonder the difference
>> between these and CF, and AL? Are there any places that carry them much
>> none in my lBS for sure ony AL and CF.
>
> In my part of the country you can't walk through the standard yuppie trap LBS
> without tripping over a Lightspeed.
Maybe you have to look a little closer. It is Litespeed.
Lou
someone
Poor quality wheelbuilds are I believe the number one cause of bicycle
dissatisfaction. Fortunately even factory 'junk' wheels supplied on
£70 Taiwanese bicycles are correctable to make even these
monstrosities perform well. Poor wheels will seriously marr the
performance advantage of a lightweight frame. The value of the wheel
is in its build, not its components. Front end stiffness seems highly
subjective and trying different fork and handlebar assemblies as well
as wheels and tyres can help the rider decide precisely what suits
him.
Mark Cleary
for a year and then went to CF. The Cf rides much better at least over
the long haul on different roads. The AL was fine and it looked great
rode pretty good but the CF is noticeable better on rougher roads. I am
able to reach a little higher speeds on the CF but not huge amounts,
someone
Slight positional changes can make a huge difference. Frequently this
is the cause of different riding quality, and the saddle. And the tyre
pressure and the wheels and then the front forks and handlebar
assembly. The rear frame shows the least difference, and this
difference can not be large, economics dictate that the the stiffness
of lightweight frames be broadly similar. The feel of a superlight
steel frame is what is most desirable although some suspect that
handling is a problem. I believe the primary problem with such a
frame is that it does not take the knocks well.
Lou Holtman
That is possible, but it is also possible the other way round.
How many Al bikes did you ride for a while and how many CF? Were the CF
bikes always faster/more comfortable?
Lou
Andre Jute
I'd be inclined to ask who built his wheels. I had an example a few
years ago when a Gazelle arrived with wheels that just wasted the good
components and wrecked the experience of the bike. After I rebuilt the
wheels, the true value of the bike, not least its comfortable floating
ride, came out. When I first got my Cyber Nexus Trek, I took one look
at those huge ali tubes and wondered if I had made a mistake buying a
bike so certain to ride harshly, but the stunningly built wheels
(designed by Keith Bontrager especially for that bike) made the ride
very pleasing (1); I've had that frame on other perfectly good wheels
and immediately it falls back to being a midrange city bike, nothing
notable, inoffensive rather than outstanding -- put it back on the
fancy Bontrager wheels and the whole bike is lifted into another class
altogether.
Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Bicycles at
http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20%26%20CYCLING.html
(1) After I chucked off the axe-head saddle Trek in their wisdom
fitted to a city bike, and rearranged the ergonomics of the bike to
fit me to a T, something I didn't have to explain to Trek, who
enthusiastically helped me do the job. Whoever said in this thread
that the frame material has little influence on the cyclist's
perception of ride quality is a wise man.
andre...@aol.com
I have a titanium bike and a steel bike. They both have very similar
feel. All things being equal, an Al frame will feel harsher and you
will feel bumps, cracks and uneven pavement a lot more.
The nice thing about ti is that they always look new.
Al frames are super cheap to produce and so are Carbon frames. Both
are pretty much made in China in huge amounts and sold with different
brands. Because they are inexpensive to produce into very light bikes
Carbon and Al pretty much dominate the market. Carbon makes into super
light bikes that kill road vibration. Carbon can also be manipulated
into any shape so it is versatile. Because most pro racers use carbon,
then everyone has to copy them and want one.
The down side of carbon is that it can fail catastrophically and w/o
warning. Pro racers replace thei frames frequently but we don't. If we
crash a Cabon frame, even if it doesn't show signs of damage it could
very well be damaged and fail on the next ride.
The other down side of Carbon is that for some reason, bike companies
inflate their prices to ridiculous levels.
Regardless, because of Carbon fiber properties, strength and
lightweight, the bike of the future will be Carbon. Hopefully
engineers will figure our how to address the disposition towards
catastrophic failure. Once that is taken care of, they will be
unbeatable.
Johnny Twelve-Point presented by JFT
>The down side of carbon is that it can fail catastrophically and w/o
>warning.
?????
How often does this really happen. Lot's of people say it, but it
seems apochryphal or semi-apochyhphal to me.
Lou Holtman
All things being equal, an Al frame will feel harsher and you
> will feel bumps, cracks and uneven pavement a lot more.
Nonsense.
>
> The nice thing about ti is that they always look new.
True. That is and should be the appeal of Ti.
>
> Al frames are super cheap to produce and so are Carbon frames. Both
> are pretty much made in China in huge amounts and sold with different
> brands. Because they are inexpensive to produce into very light bikes
> Carbon and Al pretty much dominate the market.
Carbon is not cheap to produce. Lot of hand labor involved.
Carbon makes into super
> light bikes that kill road vibration. Carbon can also be manipulated
> into any shape so it is versatile. Because most pro racers use carbon,
> then everyone has to copy them and want one.
CF can be made stiff and harsch as hell. Look at some teeth rattling
full carbon forks.
Lou
someone
IIRC wooden bicycle rims became moreor less obsolete due to their
tendency not only to warp in changing humidity but because their
failure mode, that of fracture was so dramatic and dangerous. Yet
here we are discussing the merits of a bicycle frame which exibits the
same tendencies in failure. Wood, because of its lignin content and
its ability to creep is a safer material. The creepage in a
manufactured item reduces the stresses induced at the time of
manufacture. A hard resin bonded carbon fibre cannot do this. High
strength materials always exhibit sudden dramatic failure unless the
material and/or structure has been modified to creep or yield.
Tension wheels are a good example and the failures seen in wood are
likely due to constructural error. Similar errors can be made in
carbon fibre, but the experience show it is the frames which have the
tendency to break and not carbon fibre rims. With carbon fibre in
compression and steel tensile elements, frame reliability may become
less of an issue. For development to succeed in the market, racing
exposure is generally required. Racing rules need to change(generally)
to allow for radical frame design. This is unlikely to happen when
record holders are selected for prominent positions within the racing
authority.
Tom Kunich
>
> I'd be inclined to ask who built his wheels. I had an example a few
> years ago when a Gazelle arrived with wheels that just wasted the good
> components and wrecked the experience of the bike. After I rebuilt the
> wheels, the true value of the bike, not least its comfortable floating
> ride, came out.
Andre is pretty accurate here. The difference in the movement of the wheels
vs the frame/fork is something like 100:1 so the only thing you would feel
relative to the frame would be if you hit a very large bump, the tires
bottomed and the frame absorbed significant force.
You can feel the difference at that time. But most people feel the
vibrations of the various materials and not their flexing.
Steel bikes vibrate at lower frequency and riders tend not to pay much
attention to it calling it "road feel" or some such. On very large bumps a
steel bike will sometime oscillate a bit though the better designed ones
usually don't.
Aluminum bikes vibrate at a much higher frequency and this often irritates
people. Also because of the strength issues with Al, many manufacturers tend
to build oversize tubes on the Al bikes which make the frame so rigid that
even on large bumps the frame doesn't flex at all. If you know what to look
for (or more appropriately - "feel for") you can detect the results of that
on the back end of a bump that bottoms out the tire to the rim.
CF started out built altogether too rigidly. I had a couple of early carbon
fiber frames which had that problem and they responded quite like an Al
frame. Then they started reducing the weight of the CF frames and they began
responding more like a steel frame but without the oscillations or the small
vibrations that come through. Some people complained that CF didn't have
"road feel" but eventually you get used to it.
So each material has its own advantages and disadvantages. While I have both
steel and CF bikes and I REALLY love my Look, Time and C40, I will probably
only buy steel from now on. Bicycle design has become focused on ultra-light
weight and little more. No material is good for those conditions.
I don't care that I could have a 14 lb bike. The only difference that would
make to me is that I could climb a fraction of a MPH faster. And I'm not
that into beating other people who aren't really racing me anyway up the
local climbs. Just between you and I, I really can't tell the difference
between climbing on my Time VX or my Raleigh Kodiak. One weighs 19 lbs and
the other 29 lbs and the only (real) difference I note is speed.
And I think that this continuous search for more speed is really messing up
cycling in general. Too many riders are riding away from their groups/club
rides leaving others to slog along trying to catch up. One club I rode with
a number of years ago would start a large ride and within three or four
miles they would have broken up into groups of one, two or three. There
might or might not be a stop to regroup but usually not. So the only time
you saw your friends was for a couple of minutes at the start of the ride.
Needless to say, I dropped out of that club rather soon. What's more, I see
a great many clubs breaking up for that sort of thing. Group rides of that
sort are fine occasionally but these days every ride is that way. Since I'm
retired I'm riding 6 days a week and every group ride is like that so I'm
starting to just do my own rides. Too bad more people didn't want to "go for
a ride."
someone
> Andre Jute wrote:
>
> > I'd be inclined to ask who built his wheels. I had an example a few
> > years ago when a Gazelle arrived with wheels that just wasted the good
> > components and wrecked the experience of the bike. After I rebuilt the
> > wheels, the true value of the bike, not least its comfortable floating
> > ride, came out.
>
> Andre is pretty accurate here.
This is a public forum, restrain your inclinations.
>The difference in the movement of the wheels
> vs the frame/fork is something like 100:1 so the only thing you would feel
> relative to the frame would be if you hit a very large bump, the tires
> bottomed and the frame absorbed significant force.
Either switch to tubulars or use 1 14" tyres or bigger and this will
be a rarity. Well at least you wont be taken by surprise, you will
definitely see the lump which causes the bump.
>
> You can feel the difference at that time. But most people feel the
> vibrations of the various materials and not their flexing.
Suspended leather saddles seem to be quite handy at minimising this.
>
> Steel bikes vibrate at lower frequency and riders tend not to pay much
> attention to it calling it "road feel" or some such. On very large bumps a
> steel bike will sometime oscillate a bit though the better designed ones
> usually don't.
Better install a larger damper, eat more bugers, chips and ice cream.
>
> Aluminum bikes vibrate at a much higher frequency and this often irritates
> people. Also because of the strength issues with Al, many manufacturers tend
> to build oversize tubes on the Al bikes which make the frame so rigid that
> even on large bumps the frame doesn't flex at all.
This can be remedied by installing a larger damper.
> If you know what to look
> for (or more appropriately - "feel for") you can detect the results of that
> on the back end of a bump that bottoms out the tire to the rim.
Fat butt, fat tyre.
>
> CF started out built altogether too rigidly. I had a couple of early carbon
> fiber frames which had that problem and they responded quite like an Al
> frame. Then they started reducing the weight of the CF frames and they began
> responding more like a steel frame but without the oscillations or the small
> vibrations that come through. Some people complained that CF didn't have
> "road feel" but eventually you get used to it.
Any frame is improved by ownership.
>
> So each material has its own advantages and disadvantages. While I have both
> steel and CF bikes and I REALLY love my Look, Time and C40, I will probably
> only buy steel from now on. Bicycle design has become focused on ultra-light
> weight and little more. No material is good for those conditions.
For care free riding choose steel. Coat it internally if you intend
to store it outside for twenty years. The accessibility of a bicycle
frame makes rust a non-issue. The frame should be examined routinely
by an experienced hand if the rider is a klutz. This would apply to
any material. Steel has the distinct advantage in that you can make
it ring, any fracture will produce an audible crack in the sound.
>
> I don't care that I could have a 14 lb bike. The only difference that would
> make to me is that I could climb a fraction of a MPH faster. And I'm not
> that into beating other people who aren't really racing me anyway up the
> local climbs. Just between you and I, I really can't tell the difference
> between climbing on my Time VX or my Raleigh Kodiak. One weighs 19 lbs and
> the other 29 lbs and the only (real) difference I note is speed.
There are some who can be quite dishonest with themselves and proclaim
that they are feel much better when riding a bike costing in excess of
£1000.
>
> And I think that this continuous search for more speed is really messing up
> cycling in general. Too many riders are riding away from their groups/club
> rides leaving others to slog along trying to catch up. One club I rode with
> a number of years ago would start a large ride and within three or four
> miles they would have broken up into groups of one, two or three. There
> might or might not be a stop to regroup but usually not. So the only time
> you saw your friends was for a couple of minutes at the start of the ride.
String is king. Attach yourself to the runaways using a hook on their
saddle rail, doesn't need to be too strong. Use elastic iand a rubber
coated hook if you are attempting to be subtle.
>
> Needless to say, I dropped out of that club rather soon. What's more, I see
> a great many clubs breaking up for that sort of thing. Group rides of that
> sort are fine occasionally but these days every ride is that way. Since I'm
> retired I'm riding 6 days a week and every group ride is like that so I'm
> starting to just do my own rides. Too bad more people didn't want to "go for
> a ride."
Rides which start with a cuppa are more likely to stay together.
Makes sure everyone knows who is riding and gives all a chance to
eat. You need to find a club with active social riders, not racers.
Even during the off season, the racer is still too fast for elderly
riders. This should not make any difference on the flat if the racers
lead but will affect any uphill gradient. Riding away from less able
riders on the flat when not on a training ride is really not on. You
should let your companions know before you become too breathless, just
to ease it off a little. It can be difficult to always communicate
this and it may be that they believe you were not making the effort
and preferred to ride alone.
Mark Cleary
Nobody built my wheels as such I bought these bikes and ride with the
wheels they came with. I have vuelta xrp pro 30 rims they came with the
CF bike. After about 1100 miles they are still true and other than
changing the rear tire to the front about 100 miles ago they seem well
made. So now my question since wheels matter are these wheels any good?
On the Al frame I clearly had more small road vibrations that I felt
going over country roads that were less smooth. It was not bad on smooth
pavement and in some respect I think the Al frame might have been a
little stiffer feeling. I need to ride alot more bikes to compare but
frankly I don't see how I will ever get this accomplished. The LBS does
not want you just out riding all the bikea they have and I don't know
enough cyclist to try others out.
I have noticed that to me a smooth road is almost as good for speed as a
huge downhill. In the flatlands of central Illinois we don't have any
real hills but lots of wind. I can easy get up speed on smooth pavement
that is flat compared to small down hill that is not as smooth.
Forgive my lack of experience but in the world of religious terminology
I am a novice with bikes. My 60,000 plus miles of running have little to
do with bikes but I know running shoes pretty good. The most expensive
running shoes do not always make for a better "ride" or feel.
someone
Simple test: From the left of the bike, put your right foot on the
left pedal, grab the leftmost end of the handlebar with your right
hand, stand on the pedal and balance the bike,leaning it over towards
the right. A sloppy wheel build will give at less than 45 deg
deviation. The best wheel builds will survive this test without
significant deviation with your weight over the relevant axle. 30 deg
deviation is enough for a single wheel test, but its nice to see how
far I can lean one of my own wheels. When you perform this test, stop
when you can feel or see the rim deflection. This is a simple and
effective way to compare wheels for your own use, shops probably won't
approve you carrying out this test as it has the potential to collapse
a poorly built wheel if done carelessly.
Andre Jute
Oh, someone built them all right, even if he only loaded the rims and
spokes onto a computer driven production line. Not all computer built
wheels are, equal, of course. My fabulous Utopia wheels come with a
printout to identify their build details and to enable the LBS to
restore them to their day one specification if anything should happen
to them.
>I have vuelta xrp pro 30 rims they came with the
> CF bike.
I'm the wrong guy to ask as I'm not a racer and I don't necessarily
know anything at all about US parts. More, the wheels, even the rims,
on two of my best wheelsets were custom-designed and -made from
scratch for the bikes they came on, so my experience of the normal
process is really limited to the wheels built on Rigida rims that came
with my Gazelle.
However, unless Vuelta is the name of wheelbuilding company, what you
have are likely to be Vuelta rims which someone specced with XYZ other
components to a wheelbuilding specialist company (or accepted from
them because the price fit the budget for the bike). There are
specialist individual wheelbuilders who will build wheels for you; one
of them was on RBT the other day, putting the boot into "jim beam" for
being stupid, but most bicycle manufacturers order wheels built by a
few big factory type specialists. Whether your wheels are brilliant
thus depends on who built them.
Most wheel components are of really good quality compared to a
generation ago (Chalo has nothing but contempt for Mavic rims but
others swear by them) because no manufacturer wants to pay a big
liability settlement for an accident caused by his parts.
What these imponderables really come down to is that only you can tell
how good your wheels are, and you do it mostly subjectively. If you
don't like them for any reason, then you rebuild them until you like
them, as I did with my Gazelle wheels, where even tightening the loose
spokes made such a perceptible difference that I kept going until I
could feel I had gone too far and then slacked off the spokes a
quarter-inch. I had my work checked by my LBS, who promptly tried to
give me some wheels to rebuild for his customers... Perhaps you don't
need your work checked by an LBS, but I like the extra insurance.
A good wheel is highly tensioned, evenly tensioned, round and true.
There are complications like dishing. Jobst Brandt's book
"Wheelbuilding" suffers at a couple of points from the mindless
soundbitery of an engineer who mixed with other engineers too long,
but there isn't a better book available for novices (Jobst apparently
fondly believes his book is aimed at beginners!), so if you're going
to mess with your wheels, you'll just have to read it until you
understand what Jobst intends.
>After about 1100 miles they are still true and other than
> changing the rear tire to the front about 100 miles ago they seem well
> made. So now my question since wheels matter are these wheels any good?
Someone here will know if Vuelta rims have any glaring flaws but I
would guess not if you haven't noticed any in many hours of riding.
I would say this though: chucking off expensive wheels to put on other
expensive wheels in search of marginal or perhaps only placebo
improvements can soon run up incremental costs that would be
ostentatiously unseemly for a Christian -- or anyone else. If the rims
are the right width for your bike and kind of riding, you can do a lot
by tuning the wheels, and (perhaps) using different tyres, and you
should do that first.
If your problem is that the grass is always greener on the other side
of the fence -- an expensive disease with which I'm familiar from high
fidelity music reproduction -- then nobody help you.
> On the Al frame I clearly had more small road vibrations that I felt
> going over country roads that were less smooth.
Read Tom Kunich's clever post about frequency of vibrations in various
materials. Among other things, I'm by training a psychologist, so it
comes as no surprise to me that many of the elements by which cyclists
decide which materials offer a better ride are distinctly subjective.
Example: I'm a manual worker (I operate a keyboard many hours a day)
and as a consequence extremely sensitive to any kind of sensation in
my hands. The high frequency vibration of ali frames translates in my
mind to a lack of refinement, whereas the long slow frequencies of
steel frames translate in my mind to refinement. It's not that I can
pin down those microvibrations, and the bikes in different materials
are never perfectly similar so truly scientific tests are impossible
to conduct, but that my hands start tingling after an hour or two the
bars of an ali bike whereas on my steel bike I never need to pay any
attention to my hands.
>It was not bad on smooth
> pavement and in some respect I think the Al frame might have been a
> little stiffer feeling.
This business of smoothness is much overlooked. I recently wrote here
or elsewhere that the combination of a Rohloff hub with a very stiff
(a mixte, lots of triangles) steel frame on wide rims and balloon
tyres makes a bike which feels immensely powerful because it is so
smooth; Unfortunately no one else took it up. Clearly, "smoothness" is
a subjective term, but the point is that it works for me and for you.
The problem is the number of inputs: it is not just the wheels, though
clearly quite a few people think the wheels and tyres are important.
>I need to ride alot more bikes to compare but
> frankly I don't see how I will ever get this accomplished. The LBS does
> not want you just out riding all the bikea they have and I don't know
> enough cyclist to try others out.
I know. I live in the Irish countryside. My LBS has never had anything
on his floor that I would want even in a nightmare. When I bought a
bike from him it was on special order, no return, and the importer's
boss came in person to conclude the arrangements and again to deliver
the bike. When I decided to go even further upmarket, my LBS told me
to use the internet; he didn't mind helping me out with the services
but he didn't want to complicate his life by ordering and importing
custom bikes. I've now bought three bikes sight unseen from different
countries and been happy each time, but then I'm a generally lucky
fellow, and have other useful experience and skills. Basically, I
order bikes the same way I used to drive a Porsche: on the explicit
understanding that if one cannot afford to total it, one should drive
something cheaper. So far the gamble has paid off handsomely.
> I have noticed that to me a smooth road is almost as good for speed as a
> huge downhill.
Oh, smoothness definitely makes you faster, both smoothness of the
road and the smoothness of the bike that translates via a conviction
of power to actual incremental power. I concluded that too after I
tried out my new bike on the flat and discovered I was a couple of
klicks faster than on my other bikes (one much more overtly sporting)
without noticing any extra effort. It may just be fewer distractions
sapping energy; certain tyres are intrinsically faster than others
(given equally stiff wheels). But the engineers here will throw a fit
when they discover me comparing one bike on 37mm high-pressure tyres
with another on 60mm low-pressure balloons. We're never going to sort
out the precise input-output relationship there!
>In the flatlands of central Illinois we don't have any
> real hills but lots of wind. I can easy get up speed on smooth pavement
> that is flat compared to small down hill that is not as smooth.
>
> Forgive my lack of experience but in the world of religious terminology
Eh? You gotta have some religious terminology to have been elected a
deacon! I think you mean bicycle terminology. I wouldn't worry about
that. There are lots of bikies and engineers on RBT who'll be happy to
clean up your terminology. But the perception of the stiffness of bike
frames in different materials isn't susceptible to bicycle terminology
-- all reasonably decent bike frames are for practical purposes
equally stiff in any reasonable material -- but is a matter of
psychology, possibly with some subliminal inputs. For example, I defy
anyone consciously to distinguish some of those constant vibrations
Tom Kunich identitfied; we know about them because of their effects
like tingling hands.
> I am a novice with bikes. My 60,000 plus miles of running have little to
> do with bikes but I know running shoes pretty good.
If I ever decide to sacrifice my knees for fitness by taking up
jogging, I'll ask you about running shoes.
>The most expensive
> running shoes do not always make for a better "ride" or feel.
Yeah: slave and child labour, big marketing budget, zero value added,
high profits in the entire distribution chain. Personally, I think the
founders of some brands of sporting goods have long since reserved
their place in hell.
> --
> Deacon Mark Cleary
> Epiphany Roman Catholic Church
Andre Jute
Not everything in materials is dreamt of in Timoshenko
andre...@aol.com
<usenetrem...@jt10000.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 13:47:03 -0700 (PDT), "andresm...@aol.com"
>
> <andresm...@aol.com> wrote:
> >The down side of carbon is that it can fail catastrophically and w/o
> >warning.
>
> ?????
> How often does this really happen. Lot's of people say it, but it
> seems apochryphal or semi-apochyhphal to me.
I've seen bikes from friends that broke in rather dramatic fashion.
Granted that its been very few.
andre...@aol.com
> andresm...@aol.com schreef:
>
> All things being equal, an Al frame will feel harsher and you
>
> > will feel bumps, cracks and uneven pavement a lot more.
>
> Nonsense.
Yessense!
I used to beleive that it made no difference like many in this group.
I bought an Al frame and moved a bunch of components on to it. I hated
riding it. There is this road that I often ride which is pretty bumpy
and has that unfinished asphalt with little rocks. Riding with the al
frame was hell. I moved al the components to a Ti frame and got rid of
the Al frame. Life is good again.
someone
The way you have worded this is suspect. Could you not have said, "I
thought my steel framed bike was a bit tired and so I swapped the
frame for an ali, maintaining the exact relationship of saddle to bars
to bottom bracket. Steering geometry and seat angle was identical and
yet the ali bike felt dreadful. I quickly reverted to my comfortable
sleepy steel frame and remained happy wih it to this day. The end."
Oh, I see, you now have a tit frame. Hows that to spoil a tale?
carl...@comcast.net
Dear Andres,
Not arguing whether a titanium frame is smoother than aluminum, just
curious.
In terms of lower tire pressure, what would you say the difference
was?
Five psi? Ten psi? More?
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
Johnny Twelve-Point presented by JFT
No warning? Just broke catostrophicly? Very few = twice? Five?
I assume your friends were seriously injured. RIght?
I ride in a crowded place in a community with lots of carbon bikes and
have never seen that, so I am very curious about the circumstances.
Johnny Twelve-Point presented by JFT
I've had Ti, CF, stell and very briefly aluminum bikes. My ti bike
was certainly whippier than the others, but I only noticed it when
pedalling hard or in cornering -- the ti bike (and al fork) was the
worst by far. Going straight ahead I didn't notice any difference. My
steel and carbon bikes carbon forks and feel the best in hard riding
and cornering.
I didn't ride the aluminum bike long enough to form opinions (my feet
hit the chainstays, so I only rode it once).
Tom Kunich
message news:j9f2d5tnhm1vi9k2i...@4ax.com...
>
> I've had Ti, CF, stell and very briefly aluminum bikes. My ti bike
> was certainly whippier than the others, but I only noticed it when
> pedalling hard or in cornering -- the ti bike (and al fork) was the
> worst by far. Going straight ahead I didn't notice any difference. My
> steel and carbon bikes carbon forks and feel the best in hard riding
> and cornering.
>
> I didn't ride the aluminum bike long enough to form opinions (my feet
> hit the chainstays, so I only rode it once).
I've had all materials in bikes as well as early models of each and later
models of each. Early carbon sucked big time and early aluminum (Vitus 979
and 992) was pretty good though it did flex a bit. Steel has remained a good
material. They tried improving Al bikes by making them a lot stronger with
oversize tubes. The problem is that bicycles carry humans and humans don't
like the battering from oversize tubes. Though I must admit that since I
ride a 62 cm frame or larger that oversize steel is a great deal better than
"standard" size.
The problem with carbon is the tremendous price asked for it and the fact
that most manufacturers are trying to build bicycles far too light with the
material.
Lou Holtman
You just compared two frames in your little test. That is all and that
is all I'm saying.
Lou
RonSonic
Depends a lot on the aluminum frame (I actually typed aluminumb). Transfering
parts from a Klein MTB to a GT frame, took it on the road and started wondering
what all that buzz was from. My Redline cross bike is downright cushy, even with
narrow sewups, other aluminum bikes have been buzzy and harsh. Still the more
comfy bikes on the road are steel or steel with a carbon fork.
It does indeed make a difference. Shouldn't be hard to quantify for anyone who
wants to bother.
Tim McNamara
Mark Cleary <mcle...@comcast.net> wrote:
> I bought these bikes and ride with the wheels they came with. I have
> vuelta xrp pro 30 rims they came with the CF bike. After about 1100
> miles they are still true and other than changing the rear tire to
> the front about 100 miles ago they seem well made. So now my question
> since wheels matter are these wheels any good?
So far so good, obviously.
Tim McNamara
<0fe20242-0496-4e47...@g31g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
"andre...@aol.com" <andre...@aol.com> wrote:
> All things being equal, an Al frame will feel harsher and you will
> feel bumps, cracks and uneven pavement a lot more.
It's a funny thing. This is what I have read in American cycling
magazines. But in British cycling magazines they have tended to talk
about the "soft" ride of aluminum frames. Maybe the laws of physics or
metallurgical principles are different in the UK than in the US.
The first two widely successful aluminum frames (Alan and Vitus) were
considered "soft" and "flexy" frames. Despite that, many many
professional bike races were won on them (the Vitus 979 was Sean Kelly's
favorite frame for most of his career, to the extent that the teams he
rode for switched to those frames when they hired him until the last few
years).
An awful lot of what bike riders "perceive" about frame materials and
the like is the result of their expectations and beliefs and has little
to do with reality.
Tim McNamara
That's been discussed to death with video links, reports, etc. being
cited. The problem boils down to CF having poor tolerance of notch
effects and low impact toughness. It certainly has its strong suits as
a material, but its weaknesses are in areas that make it poorly suitable
for bicycles.
I'm sure that this will change as the material is developed, it is still
a pretty immature technology for all of its advancements. Eventually
the notch sensitivity and impact resistance will be improved to the
point that it's on par with metal frames.
Personally I see little or no use for the material on my bikes (although
I do have a pair of CF Campy brake levers in a parts box that I've never
used). But admittedly the metrics I use for making such decisions are
different than, say, John's. I no longer have any interest in a
competitive advantage since I stopped racing 9 years ago. When I ride
bike, I'm more interested in smiles per hour than miles per hour. CF
offers me no enhancement- saving 5 pounds on the bike when I weigh 20
pounds more than I did when racing (215 versus 195 at 6'4") doesn't
really make a lot of sense- and a lot of downsides.
For someone actively racing, who's really got no more weight to lose and
has optimized their fitness to the point that there is little left that
can be gained there, the weight savings possible with CF might be
helpful. Just inspect it closely and frequently.
Tim McNamara
RonSonic <rons...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 10:58:30 -0500, Mark Cleary
> <mcle...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >Since the thread on titanium cassettes has me thinking, how does a
> >titanium bike ride. I have never road one and wonder the difference
> >between these and CF, and AL? Are there any places that carry them
> >much none in my lBS for sure ony AL and CF.
>
> In my part of the country you can't walk through the standard yuppie
> trap LBS without tripping over a Lightspeed.
>
> Doesn't cost crazy money to find out. These are from a former regular
> here: http://www.habcycles.com/road.html Well, they're from China, he
> designs spec's and inspects.
There's a couple of Habaneros locally and the owners are very happy with
them. To cursory inspection they looked well made. The owners were
also very happy with their transaction with Mark, too.
RonSonic
Could well be that the UK getting its first look at aluminum with the Vitus
frames gave them a different bias than Americans being introduced by Cannondale.
AMuzi
Right. I've seen every construction material and technique
fail. What we don't know in each case is material integrity,
fabrication technique quality, rider weight and style,
mileage and impacts, all compared to frequency of sales.
Simple conclusions may be unsupportable.
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Peter Cole
There has been some actual testing. Some fairly recent papers:
http://web.mit.edu/2.tha/www/ppt/Bike-ISEA.pdf
http://www.sandv.com/downloads/0707cham.pdf
The first one concludes that there is a vibration difference between the
materials, with Al vibrating more than steel of CF, but also says the
stiffer bike may be slightly more efficient.
Both articles are interesting in that they show modes of oscillation as
well as frequencies/power spectra.
What I came away with is that yes, there probably are differences, but
not earth shaking ones, which agrees with my experience. I never thought
of "ride comfort" as a problem needing to be solved, even on my
Cannondale -- supposedly one of the worst offenders. Perhaps I just have
an insensitive butt. In any case I would think more padding on gloves
and saddles would be a whole lot cheaper.
someone
Problems with steering geometry will cause a rider to believe his
frame is soft, its as if the bike is swaying when powering over a
flyover in a very high gear. Can't remember what precisley causes
this, just know steering geometry errors make for a 'soft' frame.
Most frames are too stiff. I think that perhaps quite accurate
positioning is required to take advantage of a superlight flexible
frame. Remember that Kelly was using a 12 sprocket when all around
were using their 13.
carl...@comcast.net
Dear Peter,
In this test, the accelerometer was mounted on the seat posts:
http://web.mit.edu/2.tha/www/ppt/Bike-ISEA.pdf
But the seat posts were obviously quite different.
The steel bike (least acceleration) had a standard frame with a short
seat post.
The aluminum and carbon bikes (more acceleration) had sloped top
tubes, with much longer seat posts.
I wonder how much of the results were showing the same rider's mass
waving around on a short versus long seat posts as he hit quarter-inch
bumps (4 stacked pennies) at 12 mph?
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
Frank Krygowski
>
>
> I used to beleive that it made no difference like many in this group.
> I bought an Al frame and moved a bunch of components on to it. I hated
> riding it. There is this road that I often ride which is pretty bumpy
> and has that unfinished asphalt with little rocks. Riding with the al
> frame was hell. I moved al the components to a Ti frame and got rid of
> the Al frame. Life is good again.
That's a long way from saying "All titanium bikes ride better than all
aluminum bikes." You're as likely to have "proven" that whatever
components didn't fit the new bike were the problem - like, maybe your
old model of front derailleur caused harshness. Or maybe bikes
without paint ride smoother than painted bikes. (And hey, aluminum
frames' larger diameter tubes require more paint; maybe it _is_ the
paint after all!)
Seriously, without blind testing of multiple frames built to identical
geometries and stiffnesses, I don't see how anyone but a Buycycling
magazine tester can reach general conclusions on this matter.
(We know, of course, that even freshman magazine testers can detect
changes ordinary humans find imperceptible - until they themselves are
subjected to blind tests, at which point their credibility tends to
vanish.)
- Frank Krygowski
Frank Krygowski
The current issue of Bicycle Quarterly tested a few forks, handlebars
and tires for the effect of smoothing really rough roads. Jan Heine
rode a Power Tap equipped bike on smooth roads and over newly ground
rumble strips - harsh indeed! He compared power output necessary to
maintain equivalent speeds of 31 kph.
He concluded that tires (esp. wide, low pressure ones) gave much more
improvement than anything else, with 75 psi requiring significantly
less pedal power than 100 psi. And that racers on Paris-Roubaix
should be on much fatter, lower pressure tires than they are.
Of course, we try not to ride rumble strips. But it makes sense to me
that a change in tire, or even tire pressure, would be many times more
important than frame material.
- Frank Krygowski
Tim McNamara
Tim McNamara
Peter Cole <peter...@verizon.net> wrote:
Tires. Fatter, softer. Cheap, easy suspension. Well, if your frame
can accommodate something fatter than a 25 mm tire, which is not a given
by any means especially with Al and CF frames.
Jan Heine just published testing results using a Power Tap hub to
measure power input at a given speed and comparing different tires (on
the same wheel/bike) and found that on smooth roads the Panaracer Pasela
700 x 37 at 50 psi required 34 watts less input to maintain 19 mph than
the Bontrager RaceLite Hardcase 700 x 27 tires at 95 psi. There was
another tire in between those two, the Grand Bois 700 x 25 which
required the same energy at 95 psi vs. 75 psi. Over rough road (rumble
strips) the Pasela required 163W less than the Bontragers, 155W less
than the Grand Bois at 95 psi and 73W less than the Grand Bois at 75
psi. The Paselas weighed 494g, the Grand Bois 231g and the Bontragers
139g.
He also compared forks- a Trek unicrown fork with fat legs, a Singer
fork with French-style thin curved legs and a Rock Shox road suspension
fork. The forks were installed in the same frame and used the same
tire/wheel (the Bontrager tire). The Rock Shox fork resulted in an
input of 39W less than the Trek rigid fork to maintain 19 mph on smooth
asphalt, while the Singer fork required 10W more than the Rock Shox.
Padding the bars with pipe insulation lowered the power required by the
Trek fork by 5W; this was below statistical significance.
On rough pavement (rumble strips), the different forks again showed less
range than the different tires: within 2W for the Rock Shox and Singer
forks, +33W for the Trek fork with padding on the bars and another 20W
more for the Trek fork without padding on the bars.
So, from this it appears that: (1) tires make more difference that
forks but forks do also result in some difference; and (2) the old
findings that fat tires roll better than skinny tires appears to
continue to be valid- on both smooth as well as rough road but with the
difference on the latter being much greater in size. Jim Papadopoulous
predicted this a long time ago here in the newsgroup.
Heine also discussed Paris-Roubaix and the Mapei team use of fatter
tires at lower pressures the year that they took all three podium spots
and pretty much ending the use of Rock Shox at Paris-Roubaix.
Tim McNamara
<36d63cb3-8b4f-4708...@l9g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
Frank Krygowski <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Seriously, without blind testing of multiple frames built to
> identical geometries and stiffnesses, I don't see how anyone but a
> Buycycling magazine tester can reach general conclusions on this
> matter.
IIRC Road Bike Action did this years ago, comparing otherwise identical
GT frames made of steel, aluminum and Ti. The only thing I recall from
the article is that the steel bike consistently was an advantage on
descents. I don't remember anything about performance for sprinting or
climbing. Maybe somebody here has a stash of those magazines to verify
or refute my recollection.
someone
> In article <hatir1$qn...@news.eternal-september.org>,> > > <0fe20242-0496-4e47-9eed-0e06c4e60...@g31g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
Fascinating. Please provide your source. To think, I was going to try
HP tyres again after seeing the racelites, only the largest size in
stock was 25mm, so I didn't.
Ben C
> On Oct 11, 5:31�pm, Peter Cole <peter_c...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> What I came away with is that yes, there probably are differences, but
>> not earth shaking ones, which agrees with my experience. I never thought
>> of "ride comfort" as a problem needing to be solved, even on my
>> Cannondale -- supposedly one of the worst offenders. Perhaps I just have
>> an insensitive butt. In any case I would think more padding on gloves
>> and saddles would be a whole lot cheaper.
>
> The current issue of Bicycle Quarterly tested a few forks, handlebars
> and tires for the effect of smoothing really rough roads. Jan Heine
> rode a Power Tap equipped bike on smooth roads and over newly ground
> rumble strips - harsh indeed! He compared power output necessary to
> maintain equivalent speeds of 31 kph.
>
> He concluded that tires (esp. wide, low pressure ones) gave much more
> improvement than anything else, with 75 psi requiring significantly
> less pedal power than 100 psi. And that racers on Paris-Roubaix
> should be on much fatter, lower pressure tires than they are.
Paris-Roubaix isn't cobbles all the way. In fact, most of it isn't. So I
think you just want a normal fast road bike but that can also survive
the cobbles.
someone
Over the war damaged roads, the top professional riders are riding at
a speed the majority of amateur racers attain on smooth roads. On a
smooth road, I have run a front 23mm tubular tyre at around 30psi (and
flat), rear tyre more. As well as the best wheel construction, I was
also running thin taper guage forks. Tubular tyres can withstand the
abuse of flat running, they are secured by cement, and will rarely
pinch puncture given a constant radius tyre bed. I believe that a
28mm tub has been much of a standard in Paris-Roubaix for some time
despite brands labelling narrower tyres as PB.
Johnny Twelve-Point presented by JFT
<frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>The current issue of Bicycle Quarterly tested a few forks, handlebars
>and tires for the effect of smoothing really rough roads. Jan Heine
>rode a Power Tap equipped bike on smooth roads and over newly ground
>rumble strips - harsh indeed! He compared power output necessary to
>maintain equivalent speeds of 31 kph.
>
>He concluded that tires (esp. wide, low pressure ones) gave much more
>improvement than anything else, with 75 psi requiring significantly
>less pedal power than 100 psi. And that racers on Paris-Roubaix
>should be on much fatter, lower pressure tires than they are.
I have two questions about this last paragraph:
Did the conclusion about what the races "should" do take into account
that the large majority of the Paris-Roubaix race is ridden on normal
(not cobbled roads).
And do you know what pressure the guys winning that race are typically
running in their tires? I think it's 70-80psi already.
someone
On 12 Oct, 11:24, someone <thirty-...@live.co.uk> wrote:
> Over the war damaged roads, the top professional riders are riding at
> a speed the majority of amateur racers attain on smooth roads. On a
> smooth road, I have run a front 23mm tubular tyre at around 30psi (and
> flat), rear tyre more. As well as the best wheel construction, I was
> also running thin [STEEL] taper guage forks. Tubular tyres can withstand the
> abuse of flat running, they are secured by cement, and will rarely
> pinch puncture given a constant radius tyre bed. I believe that a
> 28mm tub has been much of a standard in Paris-Roubaix for some time
> despite brands labelling narrower tyres as [PB.]xx/ [PR]
Peter Cole
> In article <hatir1$qn1$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Peter Cole <peter...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> What I came away with is that yes, there probably are differences,
>> but not earth shaking ones, which agrees with my experience. I never
>> thought of "ride comfort" as a problem needing to be solved, even on
>> my Cannondale -- supposedly one of the worst offenders. Perhaps I
>> just have an insensitive butt. In any case I would think more padding
>> on gloves and saddles would be a whole lot cheaper.
>
> Tires. Fatter, softer. Cheap, easy suspension. Well, if your frame
> can accommodate something fatter than a 25 mm tire, which is not a given
> by any means especially with Al and CF frames.
You're preaching to the choir. All of my (5) road bikes are touring
frames although I never tour. One reason is for wheel clearance. Many
years ago, I migrated from 23 -> 25 -> 28 mm, the last few years I've
been 28 -> 32 -> 38 mm. I haven't bought anything but Paselas in 5 years
or so, either.
Skinny tires *feel* fast. Also, in racing, many (most or all?) contests
are decided by climbs or sprints, where power/weight becomes the
critical dimension rather than drag/weight, so racing equipment isn't
optimal for the riding most of us do.
For years, I struggled to improve my ranking in the local club rides. I
got dropped on hills, so I tried to improve my climbing. At 6'10", I am
not a natural climber. Finally, I gave up on that and focused on
catching the pack after I had been dropped. Aerobars made me faster on
the flats, and I found I could usually catch the group after a climb. I
wasn't sure that fatter tires actually made me faster, but they didn't
seem to make me any slower, and the ride was better. I got more than a
few comments on my fat tires, though. My final realization was that
(probably because of my weight) I was a fast descender, so rather than
trying to correct my weakness (climbing), I worked with my strength,
picking spots on the loop where a steep descent was followed by a long
stretch of flat road, and would try to break off the front and stay away
over the flats. It frequently worked despite my friends wising up to my
trick and trying to draft me on the descent. When you ride the same
course with the same people week after week for years, the effect of
small changes become apparent. Fatter tires didn't slow me down.
Peter Cole
I don't know. The article was pretty sketchy, it looked more like a set
of slides that went with a talk than a real paper. Still, it's a data
point, even if not exhaustive study. I'm sure the seat post flexibility
is a variable. Maybe that's why I don't find Al frames "harsh", I tend
to use a longer post than most.
P. Chisholm
>
> "andresm...@aol.com" <andresm...@aol.com> wrote:
> > All things being equal, an Al frame will feel harsher and you will
> > feel bumps, cracks and uneven pavement a lot more.
>
> It's a funny thing. This is what I have read in American cycling
> magazines. But in British cycling magazines they have tended to talk
> about the "soft" ride of aluminum frames. Maybe the laws of physics or
> metallurgical principles are different in the UK than in the US.
>
> The first two widely successful aluminum frames (Alan and Vitus) were
> considered "soft" and "flexy" frames. Despite that, many many
> professional bike races were won on them (the Vitus 979 was Sean Kelly's
> favorite frame for most of his career, to the extent that the teams he
> rode for switched to those frames when they hired him until the last few
> years).
I agree that Alan and Vitus can be great frames but the
characteristics of these and say a Klein or Cannondale is vastly
different. I have seen two identical riders in terms of size and
strength ride the same bicycle and come to opposite opinions about how
it rode. A Serotta Classique..one said it was harsh and stiff, the
other, 'soft and vague'...
>
> An awful lot of what bike riders "perceive" about frame materials and
> the like is the result of their expectations and beliefs and has little
> to do with reality.
I agree...about tired of a rider saying his steel frame is 'getting
soft'.
Frank Krygowski
>
> Paris-Roubaix isn't cobbles all the way. In fact, most of it isn't. So I
> think you just want a normal fast road bike but that can also survive
> the cobbles.
The author (Jan Heine) went into far more detail than I did in that
brief post. For one thing, it's apparently a fallacy that skinny,
high pressure tires are always (or ever?) faster on practical road
surfaces. A previous issue of the magazine dealt with that.
High pressure, narrow tires are faster on perfectly smooth roads, just
like steel wheels are faster on smooth steel rails. But once
roughness rises to a certain level, hardness is a big detriment.
The magazine is Bicycle Quarterly. Editor and principle author is Jan
Heine. Interesting stuff, much different take on cycling than
Buycycling magazine or your Performance catalog.
http://www.vintagebicyclepress.com/vbqindex.html
- Frank Krygowski
Frank Krygowski
>
> >He concluded that tires (esp. wide, low pressure ones) gave much more
> >improvement than anything else, with 75 psi requiring significantly
> >less pedal power than 100 psi. And that racers on Paris-Roubaix
> >should be on much fatter, lower pressure tires than they are.
>
> I have two questions about this last paragraph:
>
> Did the conclusion about what the races "should" do take into account
> that the large majority of the Paris-Roubaix race is ridden on normal
> (not cobbled roads).
Yes.
> And do you know what pressure the guys winning that race are typically
> running in their tires? I think it's 70-80psi already.
In the article, Heine said some teams were using 100 psi rear, 95 psi
front. I'm not sure if those were with suspension forks or not. But
this web page, cited in the article's footnotes, talks about lower
pressures:
http://img2.tapuz.co.il/forums/1_115529144.doc
- Frank Krygowski
carl...@comcast.net
Dear Frank,
Interestingly, that 2008 article talks about punctures and stability
(to avoid crashes) in regard to tire pressure, not rolling resistance.
It's easier to read at the web site than in document form.
"For more information on the traditional wheel approach, we placed a
call to BKW friend and PRO mechanic George Noyes. As a recap, George
turned wrenches for cycling's best and did his time in the trenches
for 7-Eleven, Motorola, Cofidis, and Mapei. George has built enough
wheels in his career to fill a stadium and included in his builds are
wheels that carried the Lion himself to victory at Roubaix. . . ."
"Tire pressure remains as much art as science. According to George,
the ideal tire pressure for the Roubaix course walks a very fine line,
balancing enough pressure to keep the rider above the stones and low
enough that the bike feels stable and provides shock absorption. Like
cyclocross, tire pressure is considered too high if the rider doesn't
frequently bounce off the rim."
"The best riders have mastered the art of riding 'lightly' enough that
they can run a ridiculously low pressure without puncturing. Typical
pressure for the Mapei riders hovered around 5 3/4 bars (83 PSI) for
the rear and a shockingly low 5 bars (72 PSI) in the front. 'The lower
the pressure, the more stable the bike is over the stones,' notes
George."
"During our talks, George laughed as he recalled Museeuw's tendency to
bleed out air prior to the start of Roubaix. This served as an outlet
for nervous energy and the best were always pushing the envelope,
seeking the lowest possible pressure. 'I used to threaten to glue the
valves closed so Johan could not change the pressure,' says George."
http://www.belgiumkneewarmers.com/2008/04/tradition-vs-technology.html
Even with wide tubulars at low pressures, flats and crashes on the
straights are routine in Paris-Roubaix:
"'I crashed once and punctured three times,' Maaskant told VeloNews."
http://www.velonews.com/article/90463/boonen-blitzes-paris-roubaix
That's from the 2009 Paris-Roubaix, won by Boonen in about 6 hours 15
minutes at about 26 mph over about 162 miles.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
Tom Kunich
>
> The author (Jan Heine) went into far more detail than I did in that
> brief post. For one thing, it's apparently a fallacy that skinny,
> high pressure tires are always (or ever?) faster on practical road
> surfaces. A previous issue of the magazine dealt with that.
>
> High pressure, narrow tires are faster on perfectly smooth roads, just
> like steel wheels are faster on smooth steel rails. But once
> roughness rises to a certain level, hardness is a big detriment.
>
> The magazine is Bicycle Quarterly. Editor and principle author is Jan
> Heine. Interesting stuff, much different take on cycling than
> Buycycling magazine or your Performance catalog.
>
> http://www.vintagebicyclepress.com/vbqindex.html
It is my experience that Frank and Heine know what they're talking about.
What's more, since I often ride off pavement on my road bike, 28's are a
pretty good choice for all around performance regardless of whether they
aren't quite as fast on perfectly smooth roads.
Tom Kunich
>
>> And do you know what pressure the guys winning that race are
>> typically running in their tires? I think it's 70-80psi already.
>
> In the article, Heine said some teams were using 100 psi rear, 95 psi
> front. I'm not sure if those were with suspension forks or not.
Fatter tires with lower pressures work equally as well as suspension forks
on cobbles and weigh a great deal less. What's more, carbon frames deaden
the vibrations from riding rough roads that are almost as hard on the body
as the initial blows from the cobbles. So there aren't any suspension forks
in the P-R anymore.
thirty-six
Hard solder ages and becomes soft solder, hence the frame, once hard
becomes soft. : )
N8N
I saw the smiley, but my experience dealing with old electrical/
electronic stuff leads me to believe the opposite... (assuming that
solder and not brazing is used in the first place)
nate
thirty-six
Tinman's, electrical (same but with rosin), plumbers etc are termed
soft solder. Silver solder of type typically used in bicycle frames
and spelter (brazing metal) are termed hard solder. Tinman's can go
soft when exposed to lighter fuel for instance, it also becomes
porous. Electrical circuits are not usually subjected to chemical
contamination for prolonged periods, fire being a hazard most would
prefer to avoid. Failure of the solder to alloy is the common problem
due to poor preperation and working the joint wrong, this tends to
lead to overbrazing (with bicycle frames) becoming habit and will lead
to fracture because too much of the spelter has alloyed with the steel
causing embritlement of the frame member. I think that frame fracture
became so well known that those who were fortunate to have good frames
claimed they must be soft to excuse a poor performance. Steel is
nice, strike it with a hard wood or plastic hammer (of appropriate
weight) and a bicycle frame will ring showing the joints to be good.
So a poorly brazed/soldered frame may indeed go 'soft' when one
considers a joint without adequate braze penetration is becoming
detatched through fatigue.
There is a poosibility that with short lugs or fillet brazed frame the
joints may not be strong enough and will easily fatigue so generating
'softness'. This could happen if the braze penetrartion is short and
the braze clearance is excessive (most likely because capillary action
has not taken place). I believe the term 'fag paper clearance'
relating to bicycle frames is the gauge used to check for the correct
gap for brazing. It's supposed to be 0.003 to 0.006" for correct
capillary action (or thereabout) and a cigarette paper is typically
0.004". When I was a teenager I thought the term meant the clearance
between tyre and chainstay. It seemed a common (mis)understanding.
carl...@comcast.net
Dear Tom,
No suspension forks?
Re-read the article that Frank cited, which was written in 2008, long
after carbon frames were available:
"A walk though the start village in Compi�gne illustrates the
different strategies of the teams. Some teams and riders opt for
cantilever brakes, others the standard road calipers. Some go for
double tape, the 23, 25, 27, 28mm tires, and suspension forks."
http://www.belgiumkneewarmers.com/2008/04/tradition-vs-technology.html
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
thirty-six
> >Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
> >>> And do you know what pressure the guys winning that race are
> >>> typically running in their tires? I think it's 70-80psi already.
>
> >> In the article, Heine said some teams were using 100 psi rear, 95 psi
> >> front. I'm not sure if those were with suspension forks or not.
>
> >Fatter tires with lower pressures work equally as well as suspension forks
> >on cobbles and weigh a great deal less. What's more, carbon frames deaden
> >the vibrations from riding rough roads that are almost as hard on the body
> >as the initial blows from the cobbles. So there aren't any suspension forks
> >in the P-R anymore.
>
> Dear Tom,
>
> No suspension forks?
>
> Re-read the article that Frank cited, which was written in 2008, long
> after carbon frames were available:
>
> different strategies of the teams. Some teams and riders opt for
> cantilever brakes, others the standard road calipers. Some go for
> double tape, the 23, 25, 27, 28mm tires, and suspension forks."
>
> http://www.belgiumkneewarmers.com/2008/04/tradition-vs-technology.html
If there was a racing tyre in 35mm then I think that at least some
riders would have them fitted. We are not still in the age when one
style of frame must suit for the whole season.
Tom Kunich
news:kh57d517mpv8u8ghj...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 10:24:42 -0700, "Tom Kunich"
> <tku...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>> And do you know what pressure the guys winning that race are
>>>> typically running in their tires? I think it's 70-80psi already.
>>>
>>> In the article, Heine said some teams were using 100 psi rear, 95 psi
>>> front. I'm not sure if those were with suspension forks or not.
>>
>>Fatter tires with lower pressures work equally as well as suspension forks
>>on cobbles and weigh a great deal less. What's more, carbon frames deaden
>>the vibrations from riding rough roads that are almost as hard on the body
>>as the initial blows from the cobbles. So there aren't any suspension
>>forks
>>in the P-R anymore.
>
>
> Re-read the article that Frank cited, which was written in 2008, long
> after carbon frames were available:
>
> "A walk though the start village in Compi�gne illustrates the
> different strategies of the teams. Some teams and riders opt for
> cantilever brakes, others the standard road calipers. Some go for
> double tape, the 23, 25, 27, 28mm tires, and suspension forks."
>
> http://www.belgiumkneewarmers.com/2008/04/tradition-vs-technology.html
Carl, I don't think that there were any suspension forks in the top 20. That
suggests that they are a hindrance rather than a help and that only teams
being "sponsored" by suspension fork companies and/or people who don't know
better are using them.
Lou Holtman
Of course not. There are only 20 pro riders that can normally win PR.
The other 150 are glad when they can leave the race because of 'bad
luck' so they give a sh*t about which tires the mechanic put on. PR is
not a race, it's a circus act for people watching the TV. Get rid of it
I would say. I don't even bother watching it any more.
Lou
Tom Kunich
news:dccd5308-b496-4282...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>
> If there was a racing tyre in 35mm then I think that at least some
> riders would have them fitted. We are not still in the age when one
> style of frame must suit for the whole season.
You are aware that those Paris-Roubaix sew-ups are 28-30 mm aren't you?
thirty-six
> "thirty-six" <thirty-...@live.co.uk> wrote in message
You have some predisposition which makes you think I'm not?
AMuzi
Or it may mean only that shock fork makers didn't pay enough
in sponsor money. We don't know.
Hard to decipher sponsorship from true advantage from
psychological benefit.
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
thirty-six
> Tom Kunich schreef:
>
>
>
> > <carlfo...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >news:kh57d517mpv8u8ghj...@4ax.com...
> >> On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 10:24:42 -0700, "Tom Kunich"
> >> <tkun...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>> Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>>>> And do you know what pressure the guys winning that race are
> >>>>> typically running in their tires? I think it's 70-80psi already.
>
> >>>> In the article, Heine said some teams were using 100 psi rear, 95 psi
> >>>> front. I'm not sure if those were with suspension forks or not.
>
> >>> Fatter tires with lower pressures work equally as well as suspension
> >>> forks
> >>> on cobbles and weigh a great deal less. What's more, carbon frames
> >>> deaden
> >>> the vibrations from riding rough roads that are almost as hard on the
> >>> body
> >>> as the initial blows from the cobbles. So there aren't any suspension
> >>> forks
> >>> in the P-R anymore.
>
> >> No suspension forks?
>
> >> Re-read the article that Frank cited, which was written in 2008, long
> >> after carbon frames were available:
>
> >> different strategies of the teams. Some teams and riders opt for
> >> cantilever brakes, others the standard road calipers. Some go for
> >> double tape, the 23, 25, 27, 28mm tires, and suspension forks."
>
> >>http://www.belgiumkneewarmers.com/2008/04/tradition-vs-technology.html
>
> > Carl, I don't think that there were any suspension forks in the top 20.
> > That suggests that they are a hindrance rather than a help and that only
> > teams being "sponsored" by suspension fork companies and/or people who
> > don't know better are using them.
>
> Of course not. There are only 20 pro riders that can normally win PR.
> The other 150 are glad when they can leave the race because of 'bad
> luck' so they give a sh*t about which tires the mechanic put on. PR is
> not a race, it's a circus act for people watching the TV. Get rid of it
> I would say. I don't even bother watching it any more.
That many? A rider's skill with an 'unsuspended' machine will likely
make him more efficient than if he used the suspended machine for
Paris-Roubaix. A lesser, but perhaps still powerful, rider may prefer
the suspended machine.
Tom Kunich
news:hb08ha$lr0$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> Or it may mean only that shock fork makers didn't pay enough in sponsor
> money. We don't know.
>
> Hard to decipher sponsorship from true advantage from psychological
> benefit.
They switched to suspension bikes in the late 90's and early 2000's. They
shortly dropped those things since they added weight and didn't seem to
increase speeds at all.
Mind you they MIGHT have decreased rider fatigue but if it wasn't enough to
effect performance it wouldn't matter.
Johnny Twelve-Point presented by JFT
<frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Oct 12, 3:56�am, Ben C <spams...@spam.eggs> wrote:
>>
>> Paris-Roubaix isn't cobbles all the way. In fact, most of it isn't. So I
>> think you just want a normal fast road bike but that can also survive
>> the cobbles.
>
>The author (Jan Heine) went into far more detail than I did in that
>brief post. For one thing, it's apparently a fallacy that skinny,
>high pressure tires are always (or ever?) faster on practical road
>surfaces. A previous issue of the magazine dealt with that.
>
You reported the author saying, and it seems you agree with, the
statement that racers in Paris-Roubaix should be riding fatter tires
at lower pressure (than presumably they currently do).
How about rather than attacking general fallacies, you either confirm
that you believe that quite specific reccomendation, or that you
don't.
Which is it?
Johnny Twelve-Point presented by JFT
<frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Oct 12, 7:26�am, Johnny Twelve-Point presented by JFT
><usenetrem...@jt10000.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 18:50:59 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
>>
>> <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >He concluded that tires (esp. wide, low pressure ones) gave much more
>> >improvement than anything else, with 75 psi requiring significantly
>> >less pedal power than 100 psi. �And that racers on Paris-Roubaix
>> >should be on much fatter, lower pressure tires than they are.
>>
>> I have two questions about this last paragraph:
>>
>> Did the conclusion about what the races "should" do take into account
>> that the large majority of the Paris-Roubaix race is ridden on normal
>> (not cobbled roads).
>
>Yes.
>
>> And do you know what pressure the guys winning that race are typically
>> running in their tires? �I think it's 70-80psi already.
>
>In the article, Heine said some teams were using 100 psi rear, 95 psi
>front.
Those teams lose.
Quck Step and its Italian incarnation Mapei were known to run much
lower pressure in that race, and they've won it many times in the last
10 or 15 years.
I am not sure what CSC (the other team with significant success in
that races) uses but am highly doubtful it is as high as 95psi
But I guess pointing out the practices of losing team helps the thesis
that races don't know what they're doing. Some don't, if it's true
that racers use such high pressue as 100psi in Paris-Roubaix.
> I'm not sure if those were with suspension forks or not.
No one uses suspension forks, or at least I don't think a winner of
that race has used suspension forks in the last ten years.
> But
>this web page, cited in the article's footnotes, talks about lower
>pressures:
>
>http://img2.tapuz.co.il/forums/1_115529144.doc
I don' open MS Word documents from strange sources -- can you perahps
paste the text into a usenet message.
Johnny Twelve-Point presented by JFT
Thanks.
Frank, did you even read this before passing on that info that riders
"should" be using lower pressure in Paris Roubaxi, like 75psi. WHEN
IN FACT THEY ALREADY ARE???!!!!!!!
Thanks for bicyclingquartely for dismissing the myths and pointing out
that those guys should be doing that. Thanks. That's deep and
insightful.
Johnny Twelve-Point presented by JFT
<thirt...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>On 12 Oct, 21:51, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 10:24:42 -0700, "Tom Kunich"
>>
>> <tkun...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> >Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>> >>> And do you know what pressure the guys winning that race are
>> >>> typically running in their tires? I think it's 70-80psi already.
>>
>> >> In the article, Heine said some teams were using 100 psi rear, 95 psi
>> >> front. �I'm not sure if those were with suspension forks or not.
>>
>> >Fatter tires with lower pressures work equally as well as suspension forks
>> >on cobbles and weigh a great deal less. What's more, carbon frames deaden
>> >the vibrations from riding rough roads that are almost as hard on the body
>> >as the initial blows from the cobbles. So there aren't any suspension forks
>> >in the P-R anymore.
>>
>> Dear Tom,
>>
>> No suspension forks?
>>
>> Re-read the article that Frank cited, which was written in 2008, long
>> after carbon frames were available:
>>
>> "A walk though the start village in Compi�gne illustrates the
>> different strategies of the teams. Some teams and riders opt for
>> cantilever brakes, others the standard road calipers. Some go for
>> double tape, the 23, 25, 27, 28mm tires, and suspension forks."
>>
>> http://www.belgiumkneewarmers.com/2008/04/tradition-vs-technology.html
>
>If there was a racing tyre in 35mm then I think that at least some
>riders would have them fitted. We are not still in the age when one
>style of frame must suit for the whole season.
It's quite simple to have a 35mm racing tire made -- Dugast makes
custom tubulars and have plenty of casings that wide, which are used
in cyclocross. But they can glue on any tread pattern you like. It
will cost several hundred dollars, but that is not much for a
contender in a race like Paris-Roubaix.
And the existence of those tires is not a secret at the top end of the
sport -- some of the same mechanics who work the top end cyclocross
races also work the classics..
So you statement "If there was a racing tyre in 35mm" is kind of off
base.
thirty-six
<usenetrem...@jt10000.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 14:04:11 -0700 (PDT), thirty-six
>
>
>
> <thirty-...@live.co.uk> wrote:
> >On 12 Oct, 21:51, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
> >> On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 10:24:42 -0700, "Tom Kunich"
>
> >> <tkun...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> >Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
> >> >>> And do you know what pressure the guys winning that race are
> >> >>> typically running in their tires? I think it's 70-80psi already.
>
> >> >> In the article, Heine said some teams were using 100 psi rear, 95 psi
> >> >> front. I'm not sure if those were with suspension forks or not.
>
> >> >Fatter tires with lower pressures work equally as well as suspension forks
> >> >on cobbles and weigh a great deal less. What's more, carbon frames deaden
> >> >the vibrations from riding rough roads that are almost as hard on the body
> >> >as the initial blows from the cobbles. So there aren't any suspension forks
> >> >in the P-R anymore.
>
> >> Dear Tom,
>
> >> No suspension forks?
>
> >> Re-read the article that Frank cited, which was written in 2008, long
> >> after carbon frames were available:
>
> >> different strategies of the teams. Some teams and riders opt for
> >> cantilever brakes, others the standard road calipers. Some go for
> >> double tape, the 23, 25, 27, 28mm tires, and suspension forks."
>
> >>http://www.belgiumkneewarmers.com/2008/04/tradition-vs-technology.html
>
> >If there was a racing tyre in 35mm then I think that at least some
> >riders would have them fitted. We are not still in the age when one
> >style of frame must suit for the whole season.
>
> It's quite simple to have a 35mm racing tire made -- Dugast makes
> custom tubulars and have plenty of casings that wide, which are used
> in cyclocross. But they can glue on any tread pattern you like. It
> will cost several hundred dollars, but that is not much for a
> contender in a race like Paris-Roubaix.
>
> And the existence of those tires is not a secret at the top end of the
> sport -- some of the same mechanics who work the top end cyclocross
> races also work the classics..
>
> So you statement "If there was a racing tyre in 35mm" is kind of off
> base.
Wasn't thinking too hard about this.
Are these high grade casings, high dernier 2ply Egyptian cotton?
Tim McNamara
"Tom Kunich" <tku...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Gilbert Duclos-Lasalle won his two P-R's in a row after a decade and a
half of trying and attributed that success to the Rock Shox, after which
then blossomed in popularity until Mapei's sweep of the podium without
them. They were a short-lived wonder at P-R.
Johnny Twelve-Point presented by JFT
<thirt...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>Are these high grade casings, high dernier 2ply Egyptian cotton?
They are top-line racing tubulars used at the highest levels of the
sport, and often re-badged with other makes. I don't know if they are
cotton or nylon are what the constuction is. But they are top line
used by world champions and world up winners.
Dugast -- here are some stock models partway down the page.
http://www.peterwhitecycles.com/tubulars.asp
They custom make tires for the bigshots and people with big money.
Tim McNamara
"Tom Kunich" <tku...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Jan's measurements suggested that those fatter tires would be faster on
smooth roads as well as rough, and much faster on rough roads. This is
consistent with a number of other published tests. His measurements
need correlation with a wider tire sample, though. The Bontrager
RaceLight Hardcase may be a particular dog of a tire, for example, and a
23 mm Pro Race 2 (or whatever they are now) might be much faster and
could equal or surpass the fat Pasela.
All that said, I notice that my bike with Pasela 700 x 28s seems faster
than my bike with Pasela 700 x 25s, and my bike with Pasela 26 x 1.25s
is in between (but also weighs 6-8 lbs more than either with Brooks
saddle, fenders, generator and lights, front rack and handlebar bag).
These impressions are per average speed readings with carefully
calibrated cyclocomputers.
Tom Kunich
news:timmcn-571351....@news.iphouse.com...
That's what I had in mind when I posted. There is the possibility that
riders such as Duclos-Lasalle would have won on anything since the
suspension fork time was short lived.
AMuzi
Good point. Perhaps add "for one rider, maybe more or less
than another rider on any given day/year/course/weather/road
condition". More things we don't know.
Tom Kunich
>
> All that said, I notice that my bike with Pasela 700 x 28s seems faster
> than my bike with Pasela 700 x 25s, and my bike with Pasela 26 x 1.25s
> is in between (but also weighs 6-8 lbs more than either with Brooks
> saddle, fenders, generator and lights, front rack and handlebar bag).
> These impressions are per average speed readings with carefully
> calibrated cyclocomputers.
Seems to me that it was Jobst who posted some data somewhere that showed
that narrow tires were faster but only if they were pumped up to very high
pressures. At reasonable pressures it was pretty difficult to beat 28 mm
tires on normal road surfaces with people not ridiculously heavy.
thirty-six
> "Tim McNamara" <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote in message
>
> news:timmcn-06BF82....@news.iphouse.com...
>
>
>
> > All that said, I notice that my bike with Pasela 700 x 28s seems faster
> > than my bike with Pasela 700 x 25s, and my bike with Pasela 26 x 1.25s
> > is in between (but also weighs 6-8 lbs more than either with Brooks
> > saddle, fenders, generator and lights, front rack and handlebar bag).
> > These impressions are per average speed readings with carefully
> > calibrated cyclocomputers.
>
> Seems to me that it was Jobst who posted some data somewhere that showed
> that narrow tires were faster but only if they were pumped up to very high
> pressures.
And (run on a steel road).
> At [honest]
Frank Krygowski
I'm just reporting on the magazine article, John. I really don't know
the distribution of tire and tire pressure choices in the PR race, and
frankly, I don't much care. I was more interested in the fact that
larger, lower pressure tires tested as more efficient on rough
surfaces.
- Frank Krygowski
RonSonic
>In article
><36d63cb3-8b4f-4708...@l9g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
> Frank Krygowski <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Seriously, without blind testing of multiple frames built to
>> identical geometries and stiffnesses, I don't see how anyone but a
>> Buycycling magazine tester can reach general conclusions on this
>> matter.
>
>IIRC Road Bike Action did this years ago, comparing otherwise identical
>GT frames made of steel, aluminum and Ti. The only thing I recall from
>the article is that the steel bike consistently was an advantage on
>descents. I don't remember anything about performance for sprinting or
>climbing. Maybe somebody here has a stash of those magazines to verify
>or refute my recollection.
I don't recall that one. Here's another very famous comparison of steel versus
steel in a variety of plain and fancy tubes. http://www.habcycles.com/m7.html
--
Oh damn. There's that annoying blog. Again. http://dumbbikeblog.blogspot.com
RonSonic
wrote:
>On Oct 11, 5:31�pm, Peter Cole <peter_c...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>> > In article
>> > <0fe20242-0496-4e47-9eed-0e06c4e60...@g31g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
>> > �"andresm...@aol.com" <andresm...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> All things being equal, an Al frame will feel harsher and you will
>> >> feel bumps, cracks and uneven pavement a lot more.
>>
>> > It's a funny thing. �This is what I have read in American cycling
>> > magazines. �But in British cycling magazines they have tended to talk
>> > about the "soft" ride of aluminum frames. �Maybe the laws of physics or
>> > metallurgical principles are different in the UK than in the US.
>>
>> > The first two widely successful aluminum frames (Alan and Vitus) were
>> > considered "soft" and "flexy" frames. �Despite that, many many
>> > professional bike races were won on them (the Vitus 979 was Sean Kelly's
>> > favorite frame for most of his career, to the extent that the teams he
>> > rode for switched to those frames when they hired him until the last few
>> > years).
>>
>> > An awful lot of what bike riders "perceive" about frame materials and
>> > the like is the result of their expectations and beliefs and has little
>> > to do with reality.
>>
>> There has been some actual testing. Some fairly recent papers:
>>
>> http://web.mit.edu/2.tha/www/ppt/Bike-ISEA.pdf
>>
>> http://www.sandv.com/downloads/0707cham.pdf
>>
>> The first one concludes that there is a vibration difference between the
>> materials, with Al vibrating more than steel of CF, but also says the
>> stiffer bike may be slightly more efficient.
>>
>> Both articles are interesting in that they show modes of oscillation as
>> well as frequencies/power spectra.
>>
>> What I came away with is that yes, there probably are differences, but
>> not earth shaking ones, which agrees with my experience. I never thought
>> of "ride comfort" as a problem needing to be solved, even on my
>> Cannondale -- supposedly one of the worst offenders. Perhaps I just have
>> an insensitive butt. In any case I would think more padding on gloves
>> and saddles would be a whole lot cheaper.
>
>The current issue of Bicycle Quarterly tested a few forks, handlebars
>and tires for the effect of smoothing really rough roads. Jan Heine
>rode a Power Tap equipped bike on smooth roads and over newly ground
>rumble strips - harsh indeed! He compared power output necessary to
>maintain equivalent speeds of 31 kph.
>
>He concluded that tires (esp. wide, low pressure ones) gave much more
>improvement than anything else, with 75 psi requiring significantly
>less pedal power than 100 psi. And that racers on Paris-Roubaix
>should be on much fatter, lower pressure tires than they are.
>
>Of course, we try not to ride rumble strips. But it makes sense to me
>that a change in tire, or even tire pressure, would be many times more
>important than frame material.
Even Paris Roubaix is mostly run on fairly decent roads with some serious and
frightening exceptions. They're important in the way they seperate out the
peloton rather than being of significant length. They also serve the useful
purpose of ensuring that full sized manly men of manful proportion actually win
at least one bike race a year.
RonSonic
wrote:
>On Oct 12, 2:29�am, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
>> In article
>> <0fe20242-0496-4e47-9eed-0e06c4e60...@g31g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> �"andresm...@aol.com" <andresm...@aol.com> wrote:
>> > All things being equal, an Al frame will feel harsher and you will
>> > feel bumps, cracks and uneven pavement a lot more.
>>
>> It's a funny thing. �This is what I have read in American cycling
>> magazines. �But in British cycling magazines they have tended to talk
>> about the "soft" ride of aluminum frames. �Maybe the laws of physics or
>> metallurgical principles are different in the UK than in the US.
>>
>> The first two widely successful aluminum frames (Alan and Vitus) were
>> considered "soft" and "flexy" frames. �Despite that, many many
>> professional bike races were won on them (the Vitus 979 was Sean Kelly's
>> favorite frame for most of his career, to the extent that the teams he
>> rode for switched to those frames when they hired him until the last few
>> years).
>
>I agree that Alan and Vitus can be great frames but the
>characteristics of these and say a Klein or Cannondale is vastly
>different. I have seen two identical riders in terms of size and
>strength ride the same bicycle and come to opposite opinions about how
>it rode. A Serotta Classique..one said it was harsh and stiff, the
>other, 'soft and vague'...
>>
>> An awful lot of what bike riders "perceive" about frame materials and
>> the like is the result of their expectations and beliefs and has little
>> to do with reality.
>
>I agree...about tired of a rider saying his steel frame is 'getting
>soft'.
What's with that? Is it that over a period of time and familiarity you get to
noticing and predicting and feeling the flex of a classic steel bike? If
anything, steel work hardens so I know it ain't the bike.
Tom Kunich
news:umm7d515spmekhhrf...@4ax.com...
>
> I don't recall that one. Here's another very famous comparison of steel
> versus
> steel in a variety of plain and fancy tubes.
> http://www.habcycles.com/m7.html
I have tested Aelle, Cromor, SL and EL and simply cannot tell the difference
at all. The Aelle frame was an '89 Bottecchia LeMond version and rode
absolutely stunning. The Cromor was a Basso. The SL was a Colnago (and I
also had a Colnago Master with that cloverleaf tube) and the EL is my latest
Basso.
The Master was a pain in the butt since it was so stiff that it hammered
your brains out on an easy ride. All the others were so similar that you
really couldn't tell the difference save that the SL frame was really flexi
until I got a softer fork. Then it rode perfectly well.
Tim McNamara
Maybe you should read the article instead of reading the Cliff's notes
and thinking you've read the article. It'd make your criticism a bit
more cogent.
Tim McNamara
RonSonic <rons...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
Oh, yeah, I had forgotten about this article. Now that I see it, I
remember reading it back then. I think I even subscribed to BG.
Tim McNamara
<33633b8c-60b0-4af2...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
thirty-six <thirt...@live.co.uk> wrote:
> On 13 Oct, 00:21, "Tom Kunich" <tkun...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > "Tim McNamara" <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote in message
> >
> > news:timmcn-06BF82....@news.iphouse.com...
> >
> > > All that said, I notice that my bike with Pasela 700 x 28s seems
> > > faster than my bike with Pasela 700 x 25s, and my bike with
> > > Pasela 26 x 1.25s is in between (but also weighs 6-8 lbs more
> > > than either with Brooks saddle, fenders, generator and lights,
> > > front rack and handlebar bag). These impressions are per average
> > > speed readings with carefully calibrated cyclocomputers.
> >
> > Seems to me that it was Jobst who posted some data somewhere that
> > showed that narrow tires were faster but only if they were pumped
> > up to very high pressures.
>
> And (run on a steel road).
Apparently you didn't read and understand the data. Tom's recollection
is incorrect, too, IIRC. Here is some data, including Jobst's
discussion of the Avocet testing and testing from Continental.
http://www.terrymorse.com/bike/rolres.html
In the latter case, the Deda Tre tire (24 mm) also topped the list in
Tour Magazine's testing and Jan Heine's first rolling resistance
testing. An interesting feature is that higher pressures result in
lower rolling resistance in drum testing, while Heine's recent testing
using a Power Tap did not confirm this relationship between pressure and
rolling resistance. His testing showed no difference in power required
to propel the bike at 19 mph with the same tire at 75 vs 95 psi (a Grand
Bois 700 x 25). This is something that needs further examination.
thirty-six
>
>
>
> thirty-six <thirty-...@live.co.uk> wrote:
> > On 13 Oct, 00:21, "Tom Kunich" <tkun...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > "Tim McNamara" <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote in message
>
> > >news:timmcn-06BF82....@news.iphouse.com...
>
> > > > All that said, I notice that my bike with Pasela 700 x 28s seems
> > > > faster than my bike with Pasela 700 x 25s, and my bike with
> > > > Pasela 26 x 1.25s is in between (but also weighs 6-8 lbs more
> > > > than either with Brooks saddle, fenders, generator and lights,
> > > > front rack and handlebar bag). These impressions are per average
> > > > speed readings with carefully calibrated cyclocomputers.
>
> > > Seems to me that it was Jobst who posted some data somewhere that
> > > showed that narrow tires were faster but only if they were pumped
> > > up to very high pressures.
>
> > And (run on a steel road).
>
> Apparently you didn't read and understand the data. Tom's recollection
> is incorrect, too, IIRC. Here is some data, including Jobst's
> discussion of the Avocet testing and testing from Continental.
>
> http://www.terrymorse.com/bike/rolres.html
>
> In the latter case, the Deda Tre tire (24 mm) also topped the list in
> Tour Magazine's testing and Jan Heine's first rolling resistance
> testing. An interesting feature is that higher pressures result in
> lower rolling resistance in drum testing,
That's the steel road.
> while Heine's recent testing
> using a Power Tap did not confirm this relationship between pressure and
> rolling resistance.
Wow, reflecting real experience.
> His testing showed no difference in power required
> to propel the bike at 19 mph with the same tire at 75 vs 95 psi (a Grand
> Bois 700 x 25). This is something that needs further examination.
I've been able to go under 90psi, maybe at 75psi, with my tubs. It
lessens the fatigue in my back as evident by reduced back pain
following a ride. When I first used them, I had them around 110psi
but quickly started bleeding pressure when I realised I didn't have to
protect against pinch flats any more. The optimal pressure on these
24mm tubs seems to be less than 90psi in both tyres. That is the
pressure I tend to inflate them to when I use my track pump, only
inflating them when they are definitely soft.
RonSonic
wrote:
>On 12 Oct, 22:22, Lou Holtman <lhollaatditmaar...@planet.nl> wrote:
>> Tom Kunich schreef:
>>
>>
>>
>> > <carlfo...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> >news:kh57d517mpv8u8ghj...@4ax.com...
>> >> On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 10:24:42 -0700, "Tom Kunich"
>> >> <tkun...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> >>> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> >>>>> And do you know what pressure the guys winning that race are
>> >>>>> typically running in their tires? I think it's 70-80psi already.
>>
>> >>>> In the article, Heine said some teams were using 100 psi rear, 95 psi
>> >>>> front. �I'm not sure if those were with suspension forks or not.
>>
>> >>> Fatter tires with lower pressures work equally as well as suspension
>> >>> forks
>> >>> on cobbles and weigh a great deal less. What's more, carbon frames
>> >>> deaden
>> >>> the vibrations from riding rough roads that are almost as hard on the
>> >>> body
>> >>> as the initial blows from the cobbles. So there aren't any suspension
>> >>> forks
>> >>> in the P-R anymore.
>>
>> >> No suspension forks?
>>
>> >> Re-read the article that Frank cited, which was written in 2008, long
>> >> after carbon frames were available:
>>
>> >> "A walk though the start village in Compi�gne illustrates the
>> >> different strategies of the teams. Some teams and riders opt for
>> >> cantilever brakes, others the standard road calipers. Some go for
>> >> double tape, the 23, 25, 27, 28mm tires, and suspension forks."
>>
>> >>http://www.belgiumkneewarmers.com/2008/04/tradition-vs-technology.html
>>
>> > Carl, I don't think that there were any suspension forks in the top 20.
>> > That suggests that they are a hindrance rather than a help and that only
>> > teams being "sponsored" by suspension fork companies and/or people who
>> > don't know better are using them.
>>
>> Of course not. There are only 20 pro riders that can normally win PR.
>> The other 150 are glad when they can leave the race because of 'bad
>> luck' so they give a sh*t about which tires the mechanic put on. PR is
>> not a race, it's a circus act for people watching the TV. Get rid of it
>> I would say. I don't even bother watching it any more.
>
>That many? A rider's skill with an 'unsuspended' machine will likely
>make him more efficient than if he used the suspended machine for
>Paris-Roubaix. A lesser, but perhaps still powerful, rider may prefer
>the suspended machine.
Either that or a rider who is there under team/sponsor contractual obligation
with no real chance of winning whose highest aspiration for the race is to help
the team leader for as long as he can without getting too beat up in the
process. That's if he sets his sights that high and isn't just looking to
survive.
Ben C
> On Oct 12, 3:56�am, Ben C <spams...@spam.eggs> wrote:
>>
>> Paris-Roubaix isn't cobbles all the way. In fact, most of it isn't. So I
>> think you just want a normal fast road bike but that can also survive
>> the cobbles.
>
> The author (Jan Heine) went into far more detail than I did in that
> brief post. For one thing, it's apparently a fallacy that skinny,
> high pressure tires are always (or ever?) faster on practical road
> surfaces. A previous issue of the magazine dealt with that.
Yes, I remember some stuff about some rolling tests done on real roads
which seemed to show that fatter tyres were better.
But IIRC there wasn't much difference and Fogel wasn't convinced the
testing might not have been confounded by other random factors.
> High pressure, narrow tires are faster on perfectly smooth roads, just
> like steel wheels are faster on smooth steel rails. But once
> roughness rises to a certain level, hardness is a big detriment.
>
> The magazine is Bicycle Quarterly. Editor and principle author is Jan
> Heine. Interesting stuff, much different take on cycling than
> Buycycling magazine or your Performance catalog.
Yes, and this fat-tyres-better thing is interesting. Doesn't feel that
way on my own collection of bikes (although the fat ones are more
comfortable).
carl...@comcast.net
<lhollaatd...@planet.nl> wrote:
>Tom Kunich schreef:
>> <carl...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>Lou
Dear Lou,
Er, in the 2009 Paris-Roubaix . . .
The winner, Boonen, covered 259 km in 6:15:53 at 41.343kph (161 miles
at 27.7 mph)
187 riders started the race, expecting plenty of flats and crashes.
105 riders finished the 161-mile race.
49 riders finished within 7 minutes of the winner, less than 2%
slower than Boonen. Hincapie was #44, Cancellara was #49.
100 riders finished within 20 minutes of Boonen, a 5% increase in
time.
http://www.velonews.com/article/90463/boonen-blitzes-paris-roubaix
http://www.velonews.com/results/90463
How would you fill in the blanks in the following sentence?
"There are only [???] pro riders who can normally win the Tour de
France/Giro/Vuelta/[???]."
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
Lou Holtman
39 of them did not have a chance to win. The other 19 had a bad day or
more bad luck then Boonen.
PB to win is a race between 20 riders.
>
> 100 riders finished within 20 minutes of Boonen, a 5% increase in
> time.
So?
>
> http://www.velonews.com/article/90463/boonen-blitzes-paris-roubaix
> http://www.velonews.com/results/90463
>
> How would you fill in the blanks in the following sentence?
>
> "There are only [???] pro riders who can normally win the Tour de
> France/Giro/Vuelta/[???]."
>
5 and 10. The other riders have a chance to win a stage, which is a
great victory to them.
As a matter of fact i don't care about de Classement General I prefer to
watch every stage as was it a Classic.
Lou
Tom Kunich
>
> Apparently you didn't read and understand the data. Tom's recollection
> is incorrect, too, IIRC. Here is some data, including Jobst's
> discussion of the Avocet testing and testing from Continental.
>
> http://www.terrymorse.com/bike/rolres.html
>
> In the latter case, the Deda Tre tire (24 mm) also topped the list in
> Tour Magazine's testing and Jan Heine's first rolling resistance
> testing. An interesting feature is that higher pressures result in
> lower rolling resistance in drum testing, while Heine's recent testing
> using a Power Tap did not confirm this relationship between pressure and
> rolling resistance. His testing showed no difference in power required
> to propel the bike at 19 mph with the same tire at 75 vs 95 psi (a Grand
> Bois 700 x 25). This is something that needs further examination.
What you're missing is that they only tested the tires to 9 kg/cm2. The 18
and 20 mm tires that were readily available at that time could be pumped up
to 12 and even higher. This brought their rolling resistance down to tiny
amounts.
Frank Krygowski
>
> What you're missing is that they only tested the tires to 9 kg/cm2. The 18
> and 20 mm tires that were readily available at that time could be pumped up
> to 12 and even higher. This brought their rolling resistance down to tiny
> amounts.
... on steel drums or steel rails, perhaps. Roads with ordinary
roughness are different than smooth steel.
The fundamental point of this ongoing discussion is that tires work by
providing suspension, isolating the big bag of jelly (the rider) from
the bumps and thus reducing the resulting energy losses. This
suspension effect is not tested in the steel drum tests, but it's
probably much more important than tire hysteresis losses if one's
riding on anything but a perfectly smooth surface.
If we define "real world rolling resistance" to include hysteresis
plus suspension losses, it's probably safe to say that the absolute
lowest RWRR comes from properly matching the tire and its pressure to
the surface. But Jan Heine's tests seem to indicate that many (or
most?) riders do this badly, optimizing instead for roads far smoother
than real ones.
- Frank Krygowski
carl...@comcast.net
Dear Frank,
What does it indicate when the test shows no difference (as Tim has
pointed out) when the pressure is lowered on the same tire from 95 psi
to 75 psi?
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
carl...@comcast.net
<lhollaatd...@planet.nl> wrote:
Dear Lou,
Who are the 19 riders who had a chance to win besides Boonen?
http://www.velonews.com/article/90463/boonen-blitzes-paris-roubaix
http://www.velonews.com/results/90463
Out of curiosity, why did the other 167 riders not have a chance to
win, despite 50 of them finishing within 7 minutes of Boonen after
over six hours of riding punctuated by numerous flats and crashes?
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
russell...@yahoo.com
> On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 19:43:54 +0200, Lou Holtman
>
>
>
>
>
> >carlfo...@comcast.net schreef:
> >> On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 23:22:47 +0200, Lou Holtman
> >>>>news:kh57d517mpv8u8ghj...@4ax.com...
> >>>>> On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 10:24:42 -0700, "Tom Kunich"
> >>>>> <tkun...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>>>>> Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>>>>>>> And do you know what pressure the guys winning that race are
> >>>>>>>> typically running in their tires? I think it's 70-80psi already.
> >>>>>>> In the article, Heine said some teams were using 100 psi rear, 95 psi
> >>>>>>> front. I'm not sure if those were with suspension forks or not.
> >>>>>> Fatter tires with lower pressures work equally as well as suspension
> >>>>>> forks
> >>>>>> on cobbles and weigh a great deal less. What's more, carbon frames
> >>>>>> deaden
> >>>>>> the vibrations from riding rough roads that are almost as hard on the
> >>>>>> body
> >>>>>> as the initial blows from the cobbles. So there aren't any suspension
> >>>>>> forks
> >>>>>> in the P-R anymore.
> >>>>> No suspension forks?
>
> >>>>> Re-read the article that Frank cited, which was written in 2008, long
> >>>>> after carbon frames were available:
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
I'll answer. The 50 who finished within 7 minutes of Boonen were
riding for their designated leaders. Every team has a chosen rider to
win the classics. Particularly PR. The 50 lead their chosen leader
up to the final kilometers and then fell off. The chosen leaders went
onto to finish closer to Boonen. That last few kilometers when the
speed really increases takes something extra. Not everyone has that
extra speed in them to stay at the front. Only the chosen few who
can win have that extra burst of speed for the final sprints and
uptick in pace. The rest fall back. Close, within 7 minutes, but oh
so far.
Lou Holtman
Right. 7 minutes is a enormous difference. Did you think Flecha or
Hincapie had a chance to win even if they finished within a few minutes?
Lou
Johnny Twelve-Point presented by JFT
<tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
> I notice that my bike with Pasela 700 x 28s seems faster
>than my bike with Pasela 700 x 25s,
How much do you weigh?