|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#161
|
|||
|
|||
Are CF frames really safe?
On 29/05/2017 11:06 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 9:25:08 PM UTC-7, James wrote: On 29/05/17 12:54, John B. wrote: On Mon, 29 May 2017 07:29:33 +1000, James wrote: On 28/05/17 21:50, John B. wrote: On Sun, 28 May 2017 13:00:49 +1000, James wrote: On 27/05/17 23:13, John B. wrote: But a professional anything wants to win and will work hard to win. If the choices are a bike that is comfortable and another that goes up hill like a scalded cat then the comfortable bike gets left behind. But the differences are not that pronounced. Probably not but my point was that any real competitor wants to win and given the choice of a comfortable bike and a bike that is, say 10 minutes faster up "Big Bad Mountain" my guess he will ride the faster bike. For a 1 hour long steep climb where wind resistance is negligible, to be 10 minutes faster, the weight of the fast bike + rider would need to be about 5/6ths the slow. That would mean somewhere in the vicinity of 10kg weight reduction. Is that why Froome threw his bike away last year in Le Tour and began to run, do you think? Well yes, a 10 minute faster bike is a bit of a stretch but the point is that you, or any other serious contestant, will take every advantage that they can and if a bike is faster for a certain race then I suggest that you will select it over a more comfortable bile. I knew what the point was. I suggest that when you spend 4-6 hours a day racing over mountains and such on public roads, comfort isn't ignored because at the end of the day a rider that feels a bit fresher by not having been beaten by his bicycle, is more likely to win - all else being equal. Comfort, to some extent at least, is an advantage. I think John B. is envisioning a TT or aero-bike where rider position is learned and totally uncomfortable for civilians. I've never found a properly fitted racing bike uncomfortable. I've never had a bike that "beat me to death" on ordinary roads when it was properly adjusted, although some of the early clincher tires were like riding on wagon wheels as compared to tubulars. Those days are gone, and I would bet that the best clinchers with latex tubes are pretty close to tubular comfort. -- Jay Beattie. Try comparing your Roubaix to an S-Works Venge. I'm not saying it's totally uncomfortable just that it's way overkill for anyone not racing and uncomfortable for someone that really needs more of a Roubaix type bike. |
Ads |
#162
|
|||
|
|||
Are CF frames really safe?
On 29/05/2017 12:11 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, May 29, 2017 at 8:18:10 AM UTC-7, wrote: On Monday, May 29, 2017 at 8:06:23 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote: On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 9:25:08 PM UTC-7, James wrote: On 29/05/17 12:54, John B. wrote: On Mon, 29 May 2017 07:29:33 +1000, James wrote: On 28/05/17 21:50, John B. wrote: On Sun, 28 May 2017 13:00:49 +1000, James wrote: On 27/05/17 23:13, John B. wrote: But a professional anything wants to win and will work hard to win. If the choices are a bike that is comfortable and another that goes up hill like a scalded cat then the comfortable bike gets left behind. But the differences are not that pronounced. Probably not but my point was that any real competitor wants to win and given the choice of a comfortable bike and a bike that is, say 10 minutes faster up "Big Bad Mountain" my guess he will ride the faster bike. For a 1 hour long steep climb where wind resistance is negligible, to be 10 minutes faster, the weight of the fast bike + rider would need to be about 5/6ths the slow. That would mean somewhere in the vicinity of 10kg weight reduction. Is that why Froome threw his bike away last year in Le Tour and began to run, do you think? Well yes, a 10 minute faster bike is a bit of a stretch but the point is that you, or any other serious contestant, will take every advantage that they can and if a bike is faster for a certain race then I suggest that you will select it over a more comfortable bile. I knew what the point was. I suggest that when you spend 4-6 hours a day racing over mountains and such on public roads, comfort isn't ignored because at the end of the day a rider that feels a bit fresher by not having been beaten by his bicycle, is more likely to win - all else being equal. Comfort, to some extent at least, is an advantage. I think John B. is envisioning a TT or aero-bike where rider position is learned and totally uncomfortable for civilians. I've never found a properly fitted racing bike uncomfortable. I've never had a bike that "beat me to death" on ordinary roads when it was properly adjusted, although some of the early clincher tires were like riding on wagon wheels as compared to tubulars. Those days are gone, and I would bet that the best clinchers with latex tubes are pretty close to tubular comfort. -- Jay Beattie. Jay, have you actually ever bought a new high-end carbon bike? Not super-high end because I'm too cheap. My current light bike is a Cannondale SuperSix EVO Red (SRAM Red). I have Dura Ace C35 wheels. Yesterday's ride: https://www.flickr.com/photos/urbana...dx/16505738931 A little rough on a road bike -- but a lot sunnier than that picture. It was nice riding through the shaded fairy kingdom on a hot day. On a humorous note, that road is even worse in some places and it goes though a park called Waterboard Park. You'll confess to anything. Today's ride if my friend calls back: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSyGGID-YrQ&t=33s I love my SuperSix. Far more comfortable than my Columbus SL racing bikes of yore, and it tracks better than any bike I've ever owned. I hate double-tap SRAM Red, though -- but that's only because I'm used to STI. I'm getting used to the SRAM. I'm not sure whether I have any preference anymore. Saturday's ride started with a 45-50mph downhill out of my neighborhood on a road pocked with utility cuts. I was going full blast because I was late for a meet-up. The bike was quiet and like riding on a rail -- far better than my Roubaix, which has less planted front end. My Tarmac is comfortable for me and rides well. I hit a nice size pothole yesterday on a descent. Lady in front of me zigged and I zagged. Calling "hole" is often not enough... Thought I busted something but was happy to see that my wheel was still true. HEDs rock for Quebec roads. |
#164
|
|||
|
|||
Are CF frames really safe?
On 29/05/17 17:26, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 29 May 2017 14:24:41 +1000, James wrote: I knew what the point was. I suggest that when you spend 4-6 hours a day racing over mountains and such on public roads, comfort isn't ignored because at the end of the day a rider that feels a bit fresher by not having been beaten by his bicycle, is more likely to win - all else being equal. Comfort, to some extent at least, is an advantage. If you are talking about stage racing I believe that the criteria might be "the bike that I can finish the race in first place on". In fact I'd guess that is the overriding criteria for any sports equipment. If a competitor "is more likely to win", is that not along the same lines as "the bike that I can finish the race in first place on"? Perhaps we are in agreement? -- JS |
#165
|
|||
|
|||
Are CF frames really safe?
On Mon, 29 May 2017 07:25:13 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 7:11:10 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote: On Sun, 28 May 2017 09:50:45 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 5/28/2017 7:29 AM, wrote: On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 5:00:55 AM UTC+2, James wrote: On 27/05/17 23:13, John B. wrote: But a professional anything wants to win and will work hard to win. If the choices are a bike that is comfortable and another that goes up hill like a scalded cat then the comfortable bike gets left behind. But the differences are not that pronounced. -- JS With the know how of today, you can make a CF bike with which you can win races and is comfortable. I'd think that in most pro road races, the differences between the best bike and the worst bike would be negligible. I suppose in amateur or citizens races the best and worst bikes could be very much different. But so would the riders. And I'd think it wouldn't be uncommon that the best rider could win even if he traded bikes and rode the worst bike. While it's not road racing, I remember hearing of a guy who occasionally showed up at a velodrome (in the 1970s) riding a heavy mixte frame just to prove he could win even on that bike. Do you think that TT or tri-athlete bikes are ridden just to look cool? Or is there an advantage there? Based on Chris Boardman's two one hour records a TT bike is about 7 KM/H faster then a conventional road racing bike. Again you aren't making any sense. Most TT's are flat and the rider without a peloton around him is in a perfect aerodynamic tuck. Apples and oranges. Not so, if you read the thread that you replied to you will see my comment "If the choices are a bike that is comfortable and another that goes up hill like a scalded cat then the comfortable bike gets left behind". Translated into simple terms, "a bike racer will likely pick the bike that he reckons gives him the best chance of winning, regardless of comfort". -- Cheers, John B. |
#166
|
|||
|
|||
Are CF frames really safe?
On Mon, 29 May 2017 07:27:34 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 11:59:06 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote: On Sun, 28 May 2017 07:48:06 -0700 (PDT), wrote: On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 2:36:59 AM UTC-7, John B. wrote: On Sat, 27 May 2017 19:25:36 -0700 (PDT), wrote: On Saturday, May 27, 2017 at 5:04:06 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote: On Sat, 27 May 2017 06:25:04 -0700 (PDT), wrote: On Friday, May 26, 2017 at 7:11:10 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote: On Fri, 26 May 2017 12:06:16 -0700 (PDT), wrote: On Friday, May 26, 2017 at 8:30:39 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote: What chart John gave us? Are you talking about the fiberglass boat hull chart? Damned if I can find it now. But it contained a chart that showed the speed of resin breakdown. You have to remember that this chart was for a very heavy layup. So you have to extrapolate to the MUCH thinner CF bike layup. The long and the short of it is that it appears at least to me as if resins begin breaking down immediately the bike begins being used. This absolutely limits the lifespan of CF bikes whereas aluminum has a fairly long life (though I can't say that I've seen an Al frame break) and steel at 75% or so of max loading has an unlimited fatigue life. I wish you could find the chart that you mention as to the best of my recollection I've never posted a chart showing a relationship between resin breakdown and time. I believe that you may be referring to the boat hull testing that showed little or no decrease in composite hull samples taken over a 20 year period. The chart showed the degradation of resin between a 10 year mark and a 20 year mark. Considering the thickness of the resin which in itself is mechanically sound at that thickness, that alone tells a very complex story. Again, I'm not sure what you are referring to but if it was the fiberglass longevity test then here it is again: Table 1 Physical Property Data for 10 Year and 20 Year Tests of USCG Patrol Boat. Tensile Strength average PSI 10 years - 5,990, 20 years - 6,140 10 year, 1 test sample Compressive Strength average PSI 10 years - 12,200, 20 years - 12,210 10 year, 2 test samples Flexural Strength average PSI 10 years - 9,410, 20 years - 10,850 10 year,1 test sample Shear Strength average PSI 10 years - 6,560, 20 years - 6,146 10 year, 3 test samples Note: the variation on test values may be due to the number of samples tested. In the 10 year testing from 1 to 3 samples were tested and in the 20 year test 10 samples were tested. Well, then that's obviously not where I got the numbers and I'll look around. Some information I've come across is by makers of polyester resins. They say that the material is not catalyzed in the standard sense but is "initiated" since the initiators are converted mostly to alcohols and eliminated. So polyesters seem to me to be probably somewhat porous. So polyesters also have a very low viscosity of around 6 or so making it very easy to saturate the carbon fiber cloth which looks nothing like the surface woven material that many CF bikes have showing through the clear surface coat. All by itself polyester resin is not very strong and things like buttons are made of it and other "plastic" parts. Polyester resin is probably the most popular for boat building due to cost but it isn't what might be called 100% water proof and may absorb water to some degree and this absorbed water may react with residual chemicals from the hardener which may result in residual chemicals that absurd water and contribute to blistering. Since the mid 1970's nearly all polyester fiberglass hulls are built with a "barrier coat" which may be an outer layer of cloth which is applied using a water proof resin such as vinal ester resins, or even just a single coat of waterproof resin.. Epoxy provides the best water proofing but is substantially more expensive than other resins. A rough comparison of resin costs is epoxy costs about twice what polyester does and vinyl esters are somewhere in the middle. The makers of epoxy talk about how strong the material is all by itself and long "pot life" - meaning you have a long time to work it. However it has a high viscosity. Nope. Pot life varies and in addition accelerators are available if very fast hardening times are necessary. One vendor markets resins ranging from less then 1 hour to 48 hours pot life. The giveaway is that you can get epoxy resins in "water clear" so that you can see the reinforcing material. But the clear epoxies have viscosities of over 1200+ - fresh water is 1 I believe. No that isn't correct. Resins are made in various viscosities. A fairly light epoxy would have a viscosity of about 500 cps and a specific gravity about 1.08, water having a specific gravity of 1.0 at normal room temperature. With viscosity that high and even if you're using a "slow" setting mixture it would be difficult to both get complete infusion of the carbon fiber material so they must use vacuum methods to ensure complete infusion and elimination of bubbles which are areas of failure. Now we come to another tricky part: Epoxies are quite flexible and flexing doesn't break them up as I understood from what I've seen. This makes me wonder if they use polyester resins for the main framework and epoxy for the exterior finish. The strength of hardened epoxy is Tensile strength 85 N/mm˛ about 12,419 psi Flexural strength 112 N/mm˛ about 16,125 psi Polyester resins may be 1/4 of that strength. One man on another group got quite huffy with me when I said that super light construction would lead of rapid failures. He apparently is an engineer with Specialized. But as an example he was using a Tarmac which I believe is a Xcross bike. These aren't in the same arena with the "super lights". I have been told by several people of average size that they have built bikes weighing in at 12 lbs. The UCI returned my letter asking them to maintain the weight limits. The word from their technical department was that a heavy bike can be weak and a light bike can be strong. Which is like saying Roses are Red. As I said elsewhere, under the promise of anonymity, a team mechanic on a big time pro team said that they can go through a dozen bikes per rider in a grand tour. Now Pro bikes presently have a weight limit of 16.1 lbs. Isn't the UCF limit 6.8 kg., or 14.9 lbs. Did they change it? My brother's Giant racer weighs in exactly that with a "heavy" saddle on it. Let me tell you, when I life it off of the hooks hanging front the ceiling it weighs NOTHING. I will just have to suffer through my steel bike's horrible weight disadvantage. The one authoritative source I looked up said that water clear had viscosities between 1200 and 1600 compared to 800 for those that were not water clear. I don't know about your authoritative sources but resin sellers list viscosities from as high as 12,000 to as low as 200. Note that SAE 30 oil is about 250. Also the viscosity of a resin varies tremendously whether it is raw resin or the resin - hardener mix. One site shows a resin with a viscosity of 1,000 and the same resin, mixed with the hardener, viscosity of 350. looking it up again the weight limit is 6.8 Kg which is 14.99 lbs. The latest Giants are 15 lbs for the TSR's and they are breaking with the apparently reduced QC in order to compete with the Chinese. Giant is a Chinese (Taiwan) company :-) Do you want to argue with the Taiwanese government that they're China? I've been to both Taiwan and the PRC and if you ask them they both say the same thing "We're Chinese". -- Cheers, John B. |
#167
|
|||
|
|||
Are CF frames really safe?
On Mon, 29 May 2017 08:06:21 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote: On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 9:25:08 PM UTC-7, James wrote: On 29/05/17 12:54, John B. wrote: On Mon, 29 May 2017 07:29:33 +1000, James wrote: On 28/05/17 21:50, John B. wrote: On Sun, 28 May 2017 13:00:49 +1000, James wrote: On 27/05/17 23:13, John B. wrote: But a professional anything wants to win and will work hard to win. If the choices are a bike that is comfortable and another that goes up hill like a scalded cat then the comfortable bike gets left behind. But the differences are not that pronounced. Probably not but my point was that any real competitor wants to win and given the choice of a comfortable bike and a bike that is, say 10 minutes faster up "Big Bad Mountain" my guess he will ride the faster bike. For a 1 hour long steep climb where wind resistance is negligible, to be 10 minutes faster, the weight of the fast bike + rider would need to be about 5/6ths the slow. That would mean somewhere in the vicinity of 10kg weight reduction. Is that why Froome threw his bike away last year in Le Tour and began to run, do you think? Well yes, a 10 minute faster bike is a bit of a stretch but the point is that you, or any other serious contestant, will take every advantage that they can and if a bike is faster for a certain race then I suggest that you will select it over a more comfortable bile. I knew what the point was. I suggest that when you spend 4-6 hours a day racing over mountains and such on public roads, comfort isn't ignored because at the end of the day a rider that feels a bit fresher by not having been beaten by his bicycle, is more likely to win - all else being equal. Comfort, to some extent at least, is an advantage. I think John B. is envisioning a TT or aero-bike where rider position is learned and totally uncomfortable for civilians. I've never found a properly fitted racing bike uncomfortable. I've never had a bike that "beat me to death" on ordinary roads when it was properly adjusted, although some of the early clincher tires were like riding on wagon wheels as compared to tubulars. Those days are gone, and I would bet that the best clinchers with latex tubes are pretty close to tubular comfort. -- Jay Beattie. You can still buy them good old, 19mm, 150psi, sew-ups :-) -- Cheers, John B. |
#168
|
|||
|
|||
Are CF frames really safe?
On Mon, 29 May 2017 12:07:15 -0500, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/29/2017 1:59 AM, John B. wrote: On Sun, 28 May 2017 07:48:06 -0700 (PDT), wrote: On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 2:36:59 AM UTC-7, John B. wrote: On Sat, 27 May 2017 19:25:36 -0700 (PDT), wrote: On Saturday, May 27, 2017 at 5:04:06 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote: On Sat, 27 May 2017 06:25:04 -0700 (PDT), wrote: On Friday, May 26, 2017 at 7:11:10 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote: On Fri, 26 May 2017 12:06:16 -0700 (PDT), wrote: On Friday, May 26, 2017 at 8:30:39 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote: What chart John gave us? Are you talking about the fiberglass boat hull chart? Damned if I can find it now. But it contained a chart that showed the speed of resin breakdown. You have to remember that this chart was for a very heavy layup. So you have to extrapolate to the MUCH thinner CF bike layup. The long and the short of it is that it appears at least to me as if resins begin breaking down immediately the bike begins being used. This absolutely limits the lifespan of CF bikes whereas aluminum has a fairly long life (though I can't say that I've seen an Al frame break) and steel at 75% or so of max loading has an unlimited fatigue life. I wish you could find the chart that you mention as to the best of my recollection I've never posted a chart showing a relationship between resin breakdown and time. I believe that you may be referring to the boat hull testing that showed little or no decrease in composite hull samples taken over a 20 year period. The chart showed the degradation of resin between a 10 year mark and a 20 year mark. Considering the thickness of the resin which in itself is mechanically sound at that thickness, that alone tells a very complex story. Again, I'm not sure what you are referring to but if it was the fiberglass longevity test then here it is again: Table 1 Physical Property Data for 10 Year and 20 Year Tests of USCG Patrol Boat. Tensile Strength average PSI 10 years - 5,990, 20 years - 6,140 10 year, 1 test sample Compressive Strength average PSI 10 years - 12,200, 20 years - 12,210 10 year, 2 test samples Flexural Strength average PSI 10 years - 9,410, 20 years - 10,850 10 year,1 test sample Shear Strength average PSI 10 years - 6,560, 20 years - 6,146 10 year, 3 test samples Note: the variation on test values may be due to the number of samples tested. In the 10 year testing from 1 to 3 samples were tested and in the 20 year test 10 samples were tested. Well, then that's obviously not where I got the numbers and I'll look around. Some information I've come across is by makers of polyester resins. They say that the material is not catalyzed in the standard sense but is "initiated" since the initiators are converted mostly to alcohols and eliminated. So polyesters seem to me to be probably somewhat porous. So polyesters also have a very low viscosity of around 6 or so making it very easy to saturate the carbon fiber cloth which looks nothing like the surface woven material that many CF bikes have showing through the clear surface coat. All by itself polyester resin is not very strong and things like buttons are made of it and other "plastic" parts. Polyester resin is probably the most popular for boat building due to cost but it isn't what might be called 100% water proof and may absorb water to some degree and this absorbed water may react with residual chemicals from the hardener which may result in residual chemicals that absurd water and contribute to blistering. Since the mid 1970's nearly all polyester fiberglass hulls are built with a "barrier coat" which may be an outer layer of cloth which is applied using a water proof resin such as vinal ester resins, or even just a single coat of waterproof resin.. Epoxy provides the best water proofing but is substantially more expensive than other resins. A rough comparison of resin costs is epoxy costs about twice what polyester does and vinyl esters are somewhere in the middle. The makers of epoxy talk about how strong the material is all by itself and long "pot life" - meaning you have a long time to work it. However it has a high viscosity. Nope. Pot life varies and in addition accelerators are available if very fast hardening times are necessary. One vendor markets resins ranging from less then 1 hour to 48 hours pot life. The giveaway is that you can get epoxy resins in "water clear" so that you can see the reinforcing material. But the clear epoxies have viscosities of over 1200+ - fresh water is 1 I believe. No that isn't correct. Resins are made in various viscosities. A fairly light epoxy would have a viscosity of about 500 cps and a specific gravity about 1.08, water having a specific gravity of 1.0 at normal room temperature. With viscosity that high and even if you're using a "slow" setting mixture it would be difficult to both get complete infusion of the carbon fiber material so they must use vacuum methods to ensure complete infusion and elimination of bubbles which are areas of failure. Now we come to another tricky part: Epoxies are quite flexible and flexing doesn't break them up as I understood from what I've seen. This makes me wonder if they use polyester resins for the main framework and epoxy for the exterior finish. The strength of hardened epoxy is Tensile strength 85 N/mm˛ about 12,419 psi Flexural strength 112 N/mm˛ about 16,125 psi Polyester resins may be 1/4 of that strength. One man on another group got quite huffy with me when I said that super light construction would lead of rapid failures. He apparently is an engineer with Specialized. But as an example he was using a Tarmac which I believe is a Xcross bike. These aren't in the same arena with the "super lights". I have been told by several people of average size that they have built bikes weighing in at 12 lbs. The UCI returned my letter asking them to maintain the weight limits. The word from their technical department was that a heavy bike can be weak and a light bike can be strong. Which is like saying Roses are Red. As I said elsewhere, under the promise of anonymity, a team mechanic on a big time pro team said that they can go through a dozen bikes per rider in a grand tour. Now Pro bikes presently have a weight limit of 16.1 lbs. Isn't the UCF limit 6.8 kg., or 14.9 lbs. Did they change it? My brother's Giant racer weighs in exactly that with a "heavy" saddle on it. Let me tell you, when I life it off of the hooks hanging front the ceiling it weighs NOTHING. I will just have to suffer through my steel bike's horrible weight disadvantage. The one authoritative source I looked up said that water clear had viscosities between 1200 and 1600 compared to 800 for those that were not water clear. I don't know about your authoritative sources but resin sellers list viscosities from as high as 12,000 to as low as 200. Note that SAE 30 oil is about 250. Also the viscosity of a resin varies tremendously whether it is raw resin or the resin - hardener mix. One site shows a resin with a viscosity of 1,000 and the same resin, mixed with the hardener, viscosity of 350. looking it up again the weight limit is 6.8 Kg which is 14.99 lbs. The latest Giants are 15 lbs for the TSR's and they are breaking with the apparently reduced QC in order to compete with the Chinese. Giant is a Chinese (Taiwan) company :-) -- Cheers, John B. Right, completely different. As much difference between ROC Free China and the current regime in Peking as between the two Koreas. Well, except that the "Northerners", one might call them. have the big money in China and the small money in Korea :-) -- Cheers, John B. |
#169
|
|||
|
|||
Are CF frames really safe?
On Tue, 30 May 2017 06:51:20 +1000, James
wrote: On 29/05/17 17:26, John B. wrote: On Mon, 29 May 2017 14:24:41 +1000, James wrote: I knew what the point was. I suggest that when you spend 4-6 hours a day racing over mountains and such on public roads, comfort isn't ignored because at the end of the day a rider that feels a bit fresher by not having been beaten by his bicycle, is more likely to win - all else being equal. Comfort, to some extent at least, is an advantage. If you are talking about stage racing I believe that the criteria might be "the bike that I can finish the race in first place on". In fact I'd guess that is the overriding criteria for any sports equipment. If a competitor "is more likely to win", is that not along the same lines as "the bike that I can finish the race in first place on"? Perhaps we are in agreement? Probably :-) -- Cheers, John B. |
#170
|
|||
|
|||
Are CF frames really safe?
On 5/29/2017 9:08 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 29 May 2017 08:06:21 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie wrote: On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 9:25:08 PM UTC-7, James wrote: On 29/05/17 12:54, John B. wrote: On Mon, 29 May 2017 07:29:33 +1000, James wrote: On 28/05/17 21:50, John B. wrote: On Sun, 28 May 2017 13:00:49 +1000, James wrote: On 27/05/17 23:13, John B. wrote: But a professional anything wants to win and will work hard to win. If the choices are a bike that is comfortable and another that goes up hill like a scalded cat then the comfortable bike gets left behind. But the differences are not that pronounced. Probably not but my point was that any real competitor wants to win and given the choice of a comfortable bike and a bike that is, say 10 minutes faster up "Big Bad Mountain" my guess he will ride the faster bike. For a 1 hour long steep climb where wind resistance is negligible, to be 10 minutes faster, the weight of the fast bike + rider would need to be about 5/6ths the slow. That would mean somewhere in the vicinity of 10kg weight reduction. Is that why Froome threw his bike away last year in Le Tour and began to run, do you think? Well yes, a 10 minute faster bike is a bit of a stretch but the point is that you, or any other serious contestant, will take every advantage that they can and if a bike is faster for a certain race then I suggest that you will select it over a more comfortable bile. I knew what the point was. I suggest that when you spend 4-6 hours a day racing over mountains and such on public roads, comfort isn't ignored because at the end of the day a rider that feels a bit fresher by not having been beaten by his bicycle, is more likely to win - all else being equal. Comfort, to some extent at least, is an advantage. I think John B. is envisioning a TT or aero-bike where rider position is learned and totally uncomfortable for civilians. I've never found a properly fitted racing bike uncomfortable. I've never had a bike that "beat me to death" on ordinary roads when it was properly adjusted, although some of the early clincher tires were like riding on wagon wheels as compared to tubulars. Those days are gone, and I would bet that the best clinchers with latex tubes are pretty close to tubular comfort. -- Jay Beattie. You can still buy them good old, 19mm, 150psi, sew-ups :-) I owned a set of Panaracer 150 gram 18mm tubulars for a morning. Gave them away that afternoon. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
How safe is safe on your bicycle: what sort of differential is worthtalking about? Double? A magnitude? | Andre Jute[_2_] | Techniques | 3 | December 31st 13 12:21 AM |
Since you can't be too safe... | Frank Krygowski[_2_] | Techniques | 1 | April 2nd 13 12:33 AM |
Nobody is safe | Mr Pounder | UK | 5 | February 13th 13 01:09 PM |
Think! Is your car safe? | Doug[_3_] | UK | 276 | March 15th 10 12:53 PM |