Frame

In article
,
" wrote:

On Mar 3, 6:29*am, Bob Schwartz
wrote:
Fred Cousineau wrote:
In article
,
*Charles wrote:

On Mar 2, 10:46 pm, "Tom Kunich" wrote:
"Charles" wrote in message

...

What kind of frame is this? It is rather interesting looking.
http://velonews.competitor.com/2010/...ville-bay-clas...
That's carbon string with epoxy on it. Just between us that's a pretty
stupid idea.
Yes, I promise not to tell anyone else.

My good friend Tom is right: it is a pretty stupid idea. The
aerodynamics are so ridiculous they're ridonkulous, and that frame
weighs _more_ than the really light stuff like Scotts and even the
heavier Cervelo, I think.

Finally, would you want to clean it?

My first thought was if it whistles in the wind. I bet
it makes a lot of noise.

Bob Schwartz

Definitely a Sunday club-ride bike. Seems like you
wouldn't want to ride it in the rain. Apart from the
water getting into everything, I bet the front wheel
could throw water right through the downtube into
your face, crotch, and aerobelly.

I was going to make a joke about waiting for the
MTB version, then I went to their website and saw
that they actually advertise one.

http://www.delta7bikes.com/arantix-mountain-bike.htm

So what the heck, why not a cyclocross frame?

Ben

Dear Ben,

The MTB version came _first_.

--
Fred Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/
"It's despicable, but it works." -Fred Dumas

wrote:
Definitely a Sunday club-ride bike. Seems like you
wouldn't want to ride it in the rain. Apart from the
water getting into everything, I bet the front wheel
could throw water right through the downtube into
your face, crotch, and aerobelly.

I was going to make a joke about waiting for the
MTB version, then I went to their website and saw
that they actually advertise one.

http://www.delta7bikes.com/arantix-mountain-bike.htm

So what the heck, why not a cyclocross frame?

Ben

I'd buy a 'cross bike from them if I wasn't so worried
about spontaneous combustion. They're carbon you know.

Fred Flintstein

On Mar 3, 7:11*pm, Fred Flintstein
wrote:
wrote:
Definitely a Sunday club-ride bike. *Seems like you
wouldn't want to ride it in the rain. *Apart from the
water getting into everything, I bet the front wheel
could throw water right through the downtube into
your face, crotch, and aerobelly.

I was going to make a joke about waiting for the
MTB version, then I went to their website and saw
that they actually advertise one.

http://www.delta7bikes.com/arantix-mountain-bike.htm

So what the heck, why not a cyclocross frame?

Ben

I'd buy a 'cross bike from them if I wasn't so worried
about spontaneous combustion. They're carbon you know.

Fred Flintstein

Can you imagine how uncomfortable it would be to shoulder that thing?
Why not just velcro a cheese grater under the top tube of your current
cx bike to see what it would be like?

In article ,
"KurganGringioni" wrote:

"Fred Cousineau" wrote in message
]...
: In article
: ,
: Charles wrote:
:
: On Mar 2, 10:46 pm, "Tom Kunich" wrote:
: "Charles" wrote in message
:
:
...
:
: What kind of frame is this? It is rather interesting looking.
:
:
http://velonews.competitor.com/2010/...ville-bay-clas...
:
: That's carbon string with epoxy on it. Just between us that's a pretty
: stupid idea.
:
: Yes, I promise not to tell anyone else.
:
: My good friend Tom is right: it is a pretty stupid idea. The
: aerodynamics are so ridiculous they're ridonkulous, and that frame
: weighs _more_ than the really light stuff like Scotts


snip


Dumbass Fred Cousineau -

They weigh more?!

They're probably more expensive too, right?

Yes and yes.

I'll bet that in our lifetime, we'll see some sort of iso-truss tubing being
viable for bikes, but the concept's gotta be a lot lighter, not heavier, in
order to compensate for the aerodynamic disadvantages.

It's neat-looking, but incredibly stupid. It can never really be light
enough to compensate for the aero disadvantage, unless they start
aero-shaping the truss and wrapping it in cling film ("replace monthly
for best performance"). Bike frames already are trusses, just at a more
reasonable scale.

One area where the concept should perhaps should be applied today is in the
rear derailleur design, but once again, it's gotta be lighter.

Maybe not. The lightest read der remains the Simplex. Modern derailers
backed off in order to be more accurate (stiffer) and more reliable
(fewer delrin parts). Even now, when Shimano and Campy dabble in carbon
derailer parts, the weight is about the same.

thanks,

Fred. presented by Gringioni.

ps. p0WN THE p0DIUM!

--
Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

In article
,
Amit Ghosh wrote:

On Mar 2, 11:18*pm, Victor Kan wrote:

http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/tech/.../?id=/photos/2...

(if the link doesn't work, search for "calfee spider")

dumbasses,

NAHMBS should be renamed NAMBLA, tacky designs, ugly extravagance and
builders trying to out do each other coming up with new gimmicks. it's
the bike equivalent of "maahble columns".

Dummer junge, it has been renamed SNAHMBS.

Yes, there is a lot of silly excess. But also a lot of very pretty
bicycles, and some wonderful examples of the frame-builder's art.

And all the non-wood* bikes were less gimmicky than your example of
maahble columns.

*yes that includes the grass bikes.

--
Fred Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/
"It's despicable, but it works." -Fred Dumas

On Mar 3, 9:27*pm, Ryan Cousineau wrote:
*"KurganGringioni" wrote:

I'll bet that in our lifetime, we'll see some sort of iso-truss tubing being
viable for bikes, but the concept's gotta be a lot lighter, not heavier, in
order to compensate for the aerodynamic disadvantages.

It's neat-looking, but incredibly stupid. It can never really be light
enough to compensate for the aero disadvantage, unless they start
aero-shaping the truss and wrapping it in cling film ("replace monthly
for best performance"). Bike frames already are trusses, just at a more
reasonable scale.

One area where the concept should perhaps should be applied today is in the
rear derailleur design, but once again, it's gotta be lighter.

Maybe not. The lightest read der remains the Simplex. Modern derailers
backed off in order to be more accurate (stiffer) and more reliable
(fewer delrin parts). Even now, when Shimano and Campy dabble in carbon
derailer parts, the weight is about the same.


Dumbasses,

I basically agree with Fred Cousineau, in fact I'd go a
little stronger and say that regardless of the aero
problems, an open framework "tube" is generally
going to be at a disadvantage versus a regular tube
in the bicycle frame application. It's for the same reasons
why drillium is essentially extinct, even for chainrings -
Campy skeleton brakes are the only exception I can
think of offhand, plus a few stems with oddball cross
sections that are done just to look cool.

Rather than drilling a lot of small holes in a piece that
leave it connected by tiny webs of metal, it's stronger to make
the piece have its stress points connected by fairly solid
pieces, and leave large open spaces in between. This
is what a modern chainring looks like. It's also more or
less the principle behind a traditional triangulated bicycle
frame - you connect the important points with beams of
moderately large diameter that are strong and stiff for their
weight, and leave the spaces in the middle empty.

In the case of frame tubes, they can be under a fair amount
of torsion, especially the downtube. The most efficient
shape for resisting torsion is a circular cross section.
Anything more elaborate, like an I-beam or a box, is
actually worse in torsion so you have to add metal/CF/whatever.
If you try to make it as a very open truss, you have to
worry about the thin elements denting (analogous
to why you can't make super-light steel frames out
of super-thinwall tube - they buckle).

There are some structures that are way more efficient to
build as trusses, like a power-line tower, or a spoked
bicycle wheel for that matter. The tower has to be pretty wide
to balance, and be stiff against side loads.
If you tried to make it that wide and out of a solid tube it
would be insanely heavy. Bike frame tubes have a different
constraint. They are stiff enough when 2" or so, or less, in
diameter. You could make a stiff and light structure by
increasing the diameter and building it as a truss. But
once you make a 6" diameter truss toptube, no one is
going to be able to ride it except those goobers who have
their seats too low and knees sticking out to the sides.

The goofy Calfee frame that is entirely woven over with
carbon spiderweb is a better analogy to a truss than the
Delta 7 frame. The Delta 7 frame has its ass between
two chairs - it's trying to be a truss and a traditional
3-main-tube diamond frame at the same time. That
keeps it UCI legal but makes it cool looking rather
than optimized.

Ben

In article
,
Scott wrote:

On Mar 3, 7:11*pm, Fred Flintstein
wrote:
wrote:
Definitely a Sunday club-ride bike. *Seems like you
wouldn't want to ride it in the rain. *Apart from the
water getting into everything, I bet the front wheel
could throw water right through the downtube into
your face, crotch, and aerobelly.

I was going to make a joke about waiting for the
MTB version, then I went to their website and saw
that they actually advertise one.

http://www.delta7bikes.com/arantix-mountain-bike.htm

So what the heck, why not a cyclocross frame?

Ben

I'd buy a 'cross bike from them if I wasn't so worried
about spontaneous combustion. They're carbon you know.

Fred Flintstein

Can you imagine how uncomfortable it would be to shoulder that thing?
Why not just velcro a cheese grater under the top tube of your current
cx bike to see what it would be like?

Dear Fred,

I believe this would actually be one thing that would be OK with the
Isotruss. The little trusslets are not sharp, and the "tube" has quite a
large diameter. I don't think the actual shoulder pressure, at least for
jersey-wearing riders, would be a very serious factor.

It's only a 20-pound bike, for heaven's sake.

--
Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

wrote:

Definitely a Sunday club-ride bike. Seems like you
wouldn't want to ride it in the rain. Apart from the
water getting into everything, I bet the front wheel
could throw water right through the downtube into
your face, crotch, and aerobelly.

William Fred wrote:
That's why you put fenders on something like that.

Crotch fenders could have various other applications. I wonder if they
come in carbon.

"Ryan Cousineau" wrote in message
]...

I'll bet that in our lifetime, we'll see some sort of iso-truss tubing
being
viable for bikes, but the concept's gotta be a lot lighter, not heavier,
in
order to compensate for the aerodynamic disadvantages.

It's neat-looking, but incredibly stupid. It can never really be light
enough to compensate for the aero disadvantage, unless they start
aero-shaping the truss and wrapping it in cling film ("replace monthly
for best performance"). Bike frames already are trusses, just at a more
reasonable scale.



Dumbass -

It's theoretically possible to make that isotruss work with Buckminster
Fullerenes.

If they ever do the space tether/elevator, that's gonna be the material.
It's the only thing that's got the tensile strength to weight ratio. The
problem with it so far is no one's been able to create it at scales bigger
than nano.

thanks,

Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.

On Mar 4, 12:27*am, "
wrote:
On Mar 3, 9:27*pm, Ryan Cousineau wrote:





*"KurganGringioni" wrote:

I'll bet that in our lifetime, we'll see some sort of iso-truss tubing being
viable for bikes, but the concept's gotta be a lot lighter, not heavier, in
order to compensate for the aerodynamic disadvantages.

It's neat-looking, but incredibly stupid. It can never really be light
enough to compensate for the aero disadvantage, unless they start
aero-shaping the truss and wrapping it in cling film ("replace monthly
for best performance"). Bike frames already are trusses, just at a more
reasonable scale.

One area where the concept should perhaps should be applied today is in the
rear derailleur design, but once again, it's gotta be lighter.

Maybe not. The lightest read der remains the Simplex. Modern derailers
backed off in order to be more accurate (stiffer) and more reliable
(fewer delrin parts). Even now, when Shimano and Campy dabble in carbon
derailer parts, the weight is about the same.

Dumbasses,

I basically agree with Fred Cousineau, in fact I'd go a
little stronger and say that regardless of the aero
problems, an open framework "tube" is generally
going to be at a disadvantage versus a regular tube
in the bicycle frame application. *It's for the same reasons
why drillium is essentially extinct, even for chainrings -
Campy skeleton brakes are the only exception I can
think of offhand, plus a few stems with oddball cross
sections that are done just to look cool.

Rather than drilling a lot of small holes in a piece that
leave it connected by tiny webs of metal, it's stronger to make
the piece have its stress points connected by fairly solid
pieces, and leave large open spaces in between. *This
is what a modern chainring looks like. *It's also more or
less the principle behind a traditional triangulated bicycle
frame - you connect the important points with beams of
moderately large diameter that are strong and stiff for their
weight, and leave the spaces in the middle empty.

In the case of frame tubes, they can be under a fair amount
of torsion, especially the downtube. *The most efficient
shape for resisting torsion is a circular cross section.
Anything more elaborate, like an I-beam or a box, is
actually worse in torsion so you have to add metal/CF/whatever.
If you try to make it as a very open truss, you have to
worry about the thin elements denting (analogous
to why you can't make super-light steel frames out
of super-thinwall tube - they buckle).

There are some structures that are way more efficient to
build as trusses, like a power-line tower, or a spoked
bicycle wheel for that matter. *The tower has to be pretty wide
to balance, and be stiff against side loads.
If you tried to make it that wide and out of a solid tube it
would be insanely heavy. *Bike frame tubes have a different
constraint. *They are stiff enough when 2" or so, or less, in
diameter. *You could make a stiff and light structure by
increasing the diameter and building it as a truss. *But
once you make a 6" diameter truss toptube, no one is
going to be able to ride it except those goobers who have
their seats too low and knees sticking out to the sides.

The goofy Calfee frame that is entirely woven over with
carbon spiderweb is a better analogy to a truss than the
Delta 7 frame. *The Delta 7 frame has its ass between
two chairs - it's trying to be a truss and a traditional
3-main-tube diamond frame at the same time. *That
keeps it UCI legal but makes it cool looking rather
than optimized.

Ben- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ben,

I agree with your points, especially the final comment "...cool
looking rather than optimized".

BTW, it's very expensive too -- about $5000 (frame only).