A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Are CF frames really safe?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #171  
Old May 31st 17, 02:29 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,697
Default Are CF frames really safe?

On Tue, 30 May 2017 07:49:15 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

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.


I was going to ask some of the proponents of "comfortable" bikes
whether they had ever ridden on 18 or19mm, 150 psi, sew-ups.
If I remember they were the tire of choice for the go-fast crowd :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

Ads
  #172  
Old May 31st 17, 03:09 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Sir Ridesalot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,270
Default Are CF frames really safe?

On Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 9:30:02 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 30 May 2017 07:49:15 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

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.


I was going to ask some of the proponents of "comfortable" bikes
whether they had ever ridden on 18 or19mm, 150 psi, sew-ups.
If I remember they were the tire of choice for the go-fast crowd :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.


I don't know about 19mm tubulars but I do know that very high pressure 19mm clinchers I tried gave a much more punishing ride on the same wheels and bike got 25mm or 28mm tires later.

Cheers
  #173  
Old May 31st 17, 11:03 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,697
Default Are CF frames really safe?

On Tue, 30 May 2017 19:09:49 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 9:30:02 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 30 May 2017 07:49:15 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

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.


I was going to ask some of the proponents of "comfortable" bikes
whether they had ever ridden on 18 or19mm, 150 psi, sew-ups.
If I remember they were the tire of choice for the go-fast crowd :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.


I don't know about 19mm tubulars but I do know that very high pressure 19mm clinchers I tried gave a much more punishing ride on the same wheels and bike got 25mm or 28mm tires later.

Cheers


Way back when I used to ride around on high pressure tubulars and
thought that they were normal :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

  #174  
Old May 31st 17, 03:31 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,345
Default Are CF frames really safe?

On Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 6:30:02 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 30 May 2017 07:49:15 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

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.


I was going to ask some of the proponents of "comfortable" bikes
whether they had ever ridden on 18 or19mm, 150 psi, sew-ups.
If I remember they were the tire of choice for the go-fast crowd :-)


My memory was that you used 23 or 24 mm tubulars and ran them with less pressure than in clinchers so that they would corner better.
  #175  
Old June 1st 17, 04:27 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,697
Default Are CF frames really safe?

On Wed, 31 May 2017 07:31:17 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 6:30:02 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 30 May 2017 07:49:15 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

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.


I was going to ask some of the proponents of "comfortable" bikes
whether they had ever ridden on 18 or19mm, 150 psi, sew-ups.
If I remember they were the tire of choice for the go-fast crowd :-)


My memory was that you used 23 or 24 mm tubulars and ran them with less pressure than in clinchers so that they would corner better.


You might have but I didn't know anyone using "sew-ups" that used
tires that wide. When I was using them I don't remember clincher tires
even being fitted to "real bicycles". Maybe to an old schwinn or
something.

--
Cheers,

John B.

  #176  
Old June 1st 17, 02:51 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,345
Default Are CF frames really safe?

On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 at 8:28:02 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 31 May 2017 07:31:17 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 6:30:02 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 30 May 2017 07:49:15 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

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.

I was going to ask some of the proponents of "comfortable" bikes
whether they had ever ridden on 18 or19mm, 150 psi, sew-ups.
If I remember they were the tire of choice for the go-fast crowd :-)


My memory was that you used 23 or 24 mm tubulars and ran them with less pressure than in clinchers so that they would corner better.


You might have but I didn't know anyone using "sew-ups" that used
tires that wide. When I was using them I don't remember clincher tires
even being fitted to "real bicycles". Maybe to an old schwinn or
something.

--
Cheers,

John B.


And I remember 18 mm sew-ups being used by skinny little twerps. Perhaps you could explain why someone 6'4" and 210 lbs would ride an 18 mm tire no matter what the pressures were?
  #177  
Old June 1st 17, 02:56 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,345
Default Are CF frames really safe?

On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 at 8:28:02 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 31 May 2017 07:31:17 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 6:30:02 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 30 May 2017 07:49:15 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

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.

I was going to ask some of the proponents of "comfortable" bikes
whether they had ever ridden on 18 or19mm, 150 psi, sew-ups.
If I remember they were the tire of choice for the go-fast crowd :-)


My memory was that you used 23 or 24 mm tubulars and ran them with less pressure than in clinchers so that they would corner better.


You might have but I didn't know anyone using "sew-ups" that used
tires that wide. When I was using them I don't remember clincher tires
even being fitted to "real bicycles". Maybe to an old schwinn or
something.


Just a couple of years ago I got rid of a box of sew-ups I had. There were about 50 of them in that box all folded neatly with an elastic band holding them together. Most were rotted but there were perhaps 10 of them still in good/new condition. And they were all 24's.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:39 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.