|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Tips on carbon fiber WSD bikes?
Jay Beattie wrote:
On Jan 5, 5:50 am, Duane Hébert wrote: On 1/4/2011 6:15 PM, wrote: NO! The comfort of a bicycle resides in its wheelbase and tires; frames and wheels having practically no perceptible elasticity. Therefore, test ride the bike and see if it fits your body: bars, pedals, and saddle. You can't ask for more. If you chose a suspension bicycle, you'll get speed instabilities that you won't like. Get large enough tires 28-30mm cross section and brakes that you like. That's where it's at! Are you saying that all other things being equal, a bike with a CF frame is not more comfortable than an aluminum frame? That a steel frame is not more comfortable than an aluminum frame? Or am I misunderstanding you?- Hide quoted text - Assuming the same geometry, equipment, tires, etc., then yes, that is what he is saying. Frame materials are inelastic in the vertical plane (unless you have a suspension frame). Your seat tube does not compress and extend. Your rear stays are part of a triangulated structure. Frame materials do have more or less ability to transmit vibration, however. That is the the argument as I understand it. -- Jay Beattie. Aluminium frames with large oversize tubes were said to be very harsh, and manufacturers then replaced the straight Al seat stays with bent CF stays. I once had a spill when a fellow rider hit the road in front of me after hitting a piece of wood. In that accident my bicycle frame got damaged. The seat tube was just slightly bent at the end of the seat post. I noticed that it rode more smoothly and that the gap between the pump and seat tube kept closing and opening. I suspect that the seat tube and seat post on most bicycles flexes a little with the riders weight going over bumps. The material stiffness and tubing dimensions must play some part in the felt vertical stiffness. JS. |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Tips on carbon fiber WSD bikes?
On 1/5/2011 3:50 PM, James wrote:
Jay Beattie wrote: On Jan 5, 5:50 am, Duane Hébert wrote: On 1/4/2011 6:15 PM, wrote: NO! The comfort of a bicycle resides in its wheelbase and tires; frames and wheels having practically no perceptible elasticity. Therefore, test ride the bike and see if it fits your body: bars, pedals, and saddle. You can't ask for more. If you chose a suspension bicycle, you'll get speed instabilities that you won't like. Get large enough tires 28-30mm cross section and brakes that you like. That's where it's at! Are you saying that all other things being equal, a bike with a CF frame is not more comfortable than an aluminum frame? That a steel frame is not more comfortable than an aluminum frame? Or am I misunderstanding you?- Hide quoted text - Assuming the same geometry, equipment, tires, etc., then yes, that is what he is saying. Frame materials are inelastic in the vertical plane (unless you have a suspension frame). Your seat tube does not compress and extend. Your rear stays are part of a triangulated structure. Frame materials do have more or less ability to transmit vibration, however. That is the the argument as I understand it. -- Jay Beattie. Aluminium frames with large oversize tubes were said to be very harsh, and manufacturers then replaced the straight Al seat stays with bent CF stays. I once had a spill when a fellow rider hit the road in front of me after hitting a piece of wood. In that accident my bicycle frame got damaged. The seat tube was just slightly bent at the end of the seat post. I noticed that it rode more smoothly and that the gap between the pump and seat tube kept closing and opening. I suspect that the seat tube and seat post on most bicycles flexes a little with the riders weight going over bumps. The material stiffness and tubing dimensions must play some part in the felt vertical stiffness. The last aluminum bike that I spent any time on was around 1990 Cannondale - I don't remember the model but it had pretty large tubes. I found it very uncomfortable to ride, even though the fit seemed pretty decent. It was very jarring over the road. I traded it in for the steel Bianchi and never had problems with the ride after that. I can't say for sure whether it was the frame but it sure seemed to be. Anyway, like I said, I have a new bike now and I like riding it. Still take the Bianchi through the trails sometime though. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Tips on carbon fiber WSD bikes?
On Jan 5, 6:43*pm, Lou Holtman wrote:
Op 5-1-2011 14:50, Duane Hébert schreef: On 1/4/2011 6:15 PM, wrote: Jean who? wrote: I'm looking to replace my old road bike with a carbon fiber model. My criteria a women's specific design, comfy for all day riding, smooth riding, light weight, Shimano 105 components, and preferably with three chainwheels. Via the web, I've checked out the specs and reviews for following bikes: Cannondale (Synapse Fem 5), Felt (ZW5), Giant (Avail Advanced 2), Trek (Madrone 3.1WSD), or Specialized (Ruby Elite Apex). I was hoping y'all might have some insights into these bikes so that I could minimize driving all over the state (there are no local dealers for most of these) to do the final fit check-out and test ride. I don't know how comfort is specified on a web page. So here goes. Assuming equally good fit and tire size/psi - Do any of these bikes stand out as more smooth riding? Do any of these bikes stand out as more comfy for all day long cruising? Does anyone have any idea how the weights compare for the same size bike? Thanks for any help trying to trim down my list of potential bikes. NO! The comfort of a bicycle resides in its wheelbase and tires; frames and wheels having practically no perceptible elasticity. Therefore, test ride the bike and see if it fits your body: bars, pedals, and saddle. You can't ask for more. If you chose a suspension bicycle, you'll get speed instabilities that you won't like. Get large enough tires 28-30mm cross section and brakes that you like. That's where it's at! Are you saying that all other things being equal, a bike with a CF frame is not more comfortable than an aluminum frame? That a steel frame is not more comfortable than an aluminum frame? Or am I misunderstanding you? A steel frame can be harsher than a aluminum frame. An aluminum frame can be more comfortable than a CF frame. It is not in the material itself it is how it is used and even then saddle, wheels, fit, fitness, tires, handlebar make much much more difference. Choosing a frame material for its so called comfort properties is stupid. If have a AL, Ti and a CF roadbike and I really can't feel any difference. Al harsch and steel plush is something the 'I am a lugged steel frame guy' want you to believe. Lou Exactly. I'm a lugged steel guy only for aesthetic purposes, because I'm an artist. My arse is a *wide forks* arse, because it is a comfort arse, and very clever besides: it realizes that how a bike rides has only a little -- shading to nothing -- to do with the material the frame is made of and a very great deal with the tyres you can fit, the width of and pressure inside the tyres. A "touring bike" that will take only the skinniest tyres is not a touring bike but a fashion accessory for a poser. *** Even though it has already been stressed, I can't help adding, even if I'm not a roadie, that simple correct fit to the bike is actually the primary success factor in the OP's quest for "daylong comfort" on the bike. Even for my rides, these days never longer than three hours, indeed even on one-hour rides, increasingly better fit on my bikes have turned cycling from a living hell to something I miss fiercely when the weather keeps me inside. The OP needs to find the right dealer as a priority a long way higher up the list than discussing the material of her next bike. Andre Jute Visit Jute on Bicycles at http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/...20CYCLING.html |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Tips on carbon fiber WSD bikes?
On Jan 5, 6:49*pm, landotter wrote:
I'm of the school that Taiwan and China have got it down when it comes to mass produced frames, they're commodities, not worth sweating about. I'll have my buddy A. build me a bike next year probably--but more as a way to support a cool guy, and to have a piece of art. Nothing wrong with supporting a craftsman who'll give you something a little more than a commodity. It would be a dull world if we all bought only lowest common denominator commodity item. Andre Jute Visit Andre's books at http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/THE%20WRITER'S%20HOUSE.html |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Tips on carbon fiber WSD bikes?
On 1/5/2011 11:44 AM, Duane Hébert wrote:
I think that my steel frame is a "softer" ride than the last aluminum frame that I had and I think that the CF frame absorbs a lot of the road noise that the aluminum one didn't although less than the steel one does. Am I just imagining that? Almost certainly, at least the cause. Maybe, I mean the CF frame is a tight road bike with a short wheel base and the steel one is a sport tour style with a longer wheelbase. But the frame has to be capable of dampening road vibration doesn't it? Any bicycle that "damped" significant road vibration would also dissipate significant energy and require more power to operate at a given speed, hardly what you want in a bicycle. Given the diamond frame shape it's difficult to imagine a way to get any significant vertical deflection, never mind damping. Torsional deflection is much easier, I don't think it's likely for a frame to be ever too stiff torsionally. Before aluminum frames were cheaply manufactured they had cachet just because they were exotic (much the same for aluminum the metal before it was cheaply smelted and refined, over a century before). Aluminum's real crime is that cheap bikes can be made from it, which utterly killed its snob appeal. Rationalizations have been promoted, but they're unfortunately irrational. Aluminum is the material best suited to mass production of frames, and poorly suited to small volume runs. It's not a good match to the boutique bike market, but that takes nothing away from its suitability as a frame material. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Tips on carbon fiber WSD bikes?
On 1/6/2011 10:34 AM, Peter Cole wrote:
On 1/5/2011 11:44 AM, Duane Hébert wrote: I think that my steel frame is a "softer" ride than the last aluminum frame that I had and I think that the CF frame absorbs a lot of the road noise that the aluminum one didn't although less than the steel one does. Am I just imagining that? Almost certainly, at least the cause. Maybe, I mean the CF frame is a tight road bike with a short wheel base and the steel one is a sport tour style with a longer wheelbase. But the frame has to be capable of dampening road vibration doesn't it? Any bicycle that "damped" significant road vibration would also dissipate significant energy and require more power to operate at a given speed, hardly what you want in a bicycle. Given the diamond frame shape it's difficult to imagine a way to get any significant vertical deflection, never mind damping. Torsional deflection is much easier, I don't think it's likely for a frame to be ever too stiff torsionally. Before aluminum frames were cheaply manufactured they had cachet just because they were exotic (much the same for aluminum the metal before it was cheaply smelted and refined, over a century before). Aluminum's real crime is that cheap bikes can be made from it, which utterly killed its snob appeal. Rationalizations have been promoted, but they're unfortunately irrational. Aluminum is the material best suited to mass production of frames, and poorly suited to small volume runs. It's not a good match to the boutique bike market, but that takes nothing away from its suitability as a frame material. Dunno. I know what you're saying and I've read what Sheldon has to say on this subject. Maybe it's the zertz inserts on the seat tube or the comfy tape then but there is definitely less road vibration and buzz. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Tips on carbon fiber WSD bikes?
On 1/6/2011 11:01 AM, Duane Hébert wrote:
On 1/6/2011 10:34 AM, Peter Cole wrote: On 1/5/2011 11:44 AM, Duane Hébert wrote: I think that my steel frame is a "softer" ride than the last aluminum frame that I had and I think that the CF frame absorbs a lot of the road noise that the aluminum one didn't although less than the steel one does. Am I just imagining that? Almost certainly, at least the cause. Maybe, I mean the CF frame is a tight road bike with a short wheel base and the steel one is a sport tour style with a longer wheelbase. But the frame has to be capable of dampening road vibration doesn't it? Any bicycle that "damped" significant road vibration would also dissipate significant energy and require more power to operate at a given speed, hardly what you want in a bicycle. Given the diamond frame shape it's difficult to imagine a way to get any significant vertical deflection, never mind damping. Torsional deflection is much easier, I don't think it's likely for a frame to be ever too stiff torsionally. Before aluminum frames were cheaply manufactured they had cachet just because they were exotic (much the same for aluminum the metal before it was cheaply smelted and refined, over a century before). Aluminum's real crime is that cheap bikes can be made from it, which utterly killed its snob appeal. Rationalizations have been promoted, but they're unfortunately irrational. Aluminum is the material best suited to mass production of frames, and poorly suited to small volume runs. It's not a good match to the boutique bike market, but that takes nothing away from its suitability as a frame material. Dunno. I know what you're saying and I've read what Sheldon has to say on this subject. Maybe it's the zertz inserts on the seat tube or the comfy tape then but there is definitely less road vibration and buzz. I'm afraid you can only gush about butt comfort, not hands, unless you also had a fat tubed aluminum fork. The problem with the butt theory is that that nasty road buzz has to make it through the tires, saddle and seatpost, all of which are much more compliant than the frame's rear triangle. Maybe I just don't have a sensitive butt, I've been accused of worse. I do notice torsional stiffness quite easily. Other than perhaps an involvement in high speed shimmy, I'd say that's a matter of taste, and tends to be a much more obvious phenomenon in the very large frames I am obliged to use. I like frames torsionally stiff, they just feel more stable at high speed. That's subjective, as is the feeling of being more efficient on climbs -- neither of which I'd be prepared to defend (or spend a lot of money on). Maybe frame materials make a bigger difference in smaller frames, I don't know, all my bikes seem to have the same "plushness". |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Tips on carbon fiber WSD bikes?
Peter Cole wrote:
On 1/5/2011 11:44 AM, Duane Hébert wrote: I think that my steel frame is a "softer" ride than the last aluminum frame that I had and I think that the CF frame absorbs a lot of the road noise that the aluminum one didn't although less than the steel one does. Am I just imagining that? Almost certainly, at least the cause. Read all about it on the internet - not about bikes.. http://www.acpt.com/article2.html for example. CF damps vibration more than steel or al. Any bicycle that "damped" significant road vibration would also dissipate significant energy and require more power to operate at a given speed, hardly what you want in a bicycle. Yes - and no. Instead of dissipating high frequency vibration in the frame, moving that energy into your body _may_ be detrimental. Given the diamond frame shape it's difficult to imagine a way to get any significant vertical deflection, never mind damping. Yet it exists. http://www.sheldonbrown.com/rinard/fea.htm Torsional deflection is much easier, I don't think it's likely for a frame to be ever too stiff torsionally. Agreed. Before aluminum frames were cheaply manufactured they had cachet just because they were exotic (much the same for aluminum the metal before it was cheaply smelted and refined, over a century before). Aluminum's real crime is that cheap bikes can be made from it, which utterly killed its snob appeal. Rationalizations have been promoted, but they're unfortunately irrational. Aluminum is the material best suited to mass production of frames, and poorly suited to small volume runs. It's not a good match to the boutique bike market, but that takes nothing away from its suitability as a frame material. Only the lower cyclic fatigue life, and knock and bump resistance compared with steel and Ti in regular bicycle frame tube dimensions. JS. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Tips on carbon fiber WSD bikes?
On 1/6/2011 9:34 AM, Peter Cole wrote:
[...] Before aluminum frames were cheaply manufactured they had cachet just because they were exotic (much the same for aluminum the metal before it was cheaply smelted and refined, over a century before). Aluminum's real crime is that cheap bikes can be made from it, which utterly killed its snob appeal. Rationalizations have been promoted, but they're unfortunately irrational. Aluminum is the material best suited to mass production of frames, and poorly suited to small volume runs. It's not a good match to the boutique bike market, but that takes nothing away from its suitability as a frame material. Aluminium is a terrible material for a bicycle frame. However, very good bicycles can be made with aluminium alloy frames. -- Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007 I am a vehicular cyclist. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Tips on carbon fiber WSD bikes?
On 1/6/2011 4:26 PM, Peter Cole wrote:
On 1/6/2011 11:01 AM, Duane Hébert wrote: On 1/6/2011 10:34 AM, Peter Cole wrote: On 1/5/2011 11:44 AM, Duane Hébert wrote: I think that my steel frame is a "softer" ride than the last aluminum frame that I had and I think that the CF frame absorbs a lot of the road noise that the aluminum one didn't although less than the steel one does. Am I just imagining that? Almost certainly, at least the cause. Maybe, I mean the CF frame is a tight road bike with a short wheel base and the steel one is a sport tour style with a longer wheelbase. But the frame has to be capable of dampening road vibration doesn't it? Any bicycle that "damped" significant road vibration would also dissipate significant energy and require more power to operate at a given speed, hardly what you want in a bicycle. Given the diamond frame shape it's difficult to imagine a way to get any significant vertical deflection, never mind damping. Torsional deflection is much easier, I don't think it's likely for a frame to be ever too stiff torsionally. Before aluminum frames were cheaply manufactured they had cachet just because they were exotic (much the same for aluminum the metal before it was cheaply smelted and refined, over a century before). Aluminum's real crime is that cheap bikes can be made from it, which utterly killed its snob appeal. Rationalizations have been promoted, but they're unfortunately irrational. Aluminum is the material best suited to mass production of frames, and poorly suited to small volume runs. It's not a good match to the boutique bike market, but that takes nothing away from its suitability as a frame material. Dunno. I know what you're saying and I've read what Sheldon has to say on this subject. Maybe it's the zertz inserts on the seat tube or the comfy tape then but there is definitely less road vibration and buzz. I'm afraid you can only gush about butt comfort, not hands, unless you also had a fat tubed aluminum fork. The problem with the butt theory is that that nasty road buzz has to make it through the tires, saddle and seatpost, all of which are much more compliant than the frame's rear triangle. Maybe I just don't have a sensitive butt, I've been accused of worse. Sorry, didn't realize that I was gushing. I generally don't tend to do that. I'm talking about the buzz that I feel in the bars. It's sort of like novacaine. I can feel the buzz and road roughness but it's duller (if that's a word) than on my other bike. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Tips on carbon fiber WSD bikes? | Jean | Techniques | 234 | January 18th 11 11:15 AM |
Tips on carbon fiber WSD bikes? | Tºm Shermªn™ °_°[_2_] | Techniques | 0 | January 5th 11 05:52 AM |
Carbon fiber bikes | Chris Zacho The Wheelman | General | 6 | September 21st 05 12:01 PM |
Where are the old Carbon Fiber bikes? | Never Enough Money | General | 11 | September 16th 05 02:46 AM |