Highest Vertical PSD Between 40 - 60 Hz

On Mar 28, 4:31*pm, Simon Mason wrote:
On Mar 28, 2:53*pm, thirty-six wrote:



It was interesting to read that you use less power to ride an
aluminium frame than a steel one due to the stiffer frame of the
aluminium. Carbon fibre was a close second.
I think you have misinterpreted these results. *It seems the cyclist
was able to put out a greater natural effort with the lower shock
transmission of the steel frame.

That's a pity - I only have two ally bikes and a carbon one.
I don't fancy having to get another one made of steel.

Vibration cuts into your

performance. *A well-conditioned professional racer is also less
receptive to the negative stimulation of road vibration, so for this
to show up at 220 watts is quite significant for racers and it makes
it obvious why those first frames in the professional peleton 'made
fwith carbon-fibre tubes' were frequently mock-ups actually made with
Reynolds 753 * It is born out in practise that at sustainably fully
aerobic levels greater power is put out with steel frames. *If you
want to take it to its conclusion, use a softbeam frame, but to be
compliant with most bicycle racing rules one cannot use that marvelous
pattern and must play with wheels to get the ideal response.-

I don't think that I put out enough in the way of wattage for me to
notice any difference, my carbon bike feels like it is laying down all
of the power that I put out, so I am more than happy with it.

An interesting piece though.

--
Simon Mason

The vibration limits your capacity for aerobic metabolism. Steel is
good in that you can relatively easily swap tubes around to get the
desirable response but much can be done with wire spoke wheels of
28/32/36 spokes with medium weight rims.