Tips on carbon fiber WSD bikes?

On Jan 6, 6:24*pm, Jim Rogers wrote:
Jobst is a fraud. *He says spokes were tied together to prevent
entanglement. *Here is the absolute proof that the tied and soldered
wheel was the original tangent spoked wheel.

Chalo, Tom Sherman, et al. have made the seminal observation about the
fact that you do not reside on this earth. This has made the
interpretations of your posts so much easier!

Yes, on your planet Jobst is a fraud.

However, on earth Jobst is very knowledgeable about bicycle wheels and
his knowledge is based on fact, logic, and reason. These are things we
use regularly here on earth to figure stuff out.

--Jim

Jobst claims that nobody had ever thought how a bicycle wheel works.
Well let's forget bicycles and call it a tension or suspension wheel.
Bauman Had clearly thought about how his wheel worked else how would
he have patent approval? Thousands have followed, in their
improvements to this wheel, all THINKING about how the wheel works.

Of particular intrest is the patent by Palmer
http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=r9ZuAAAAEBAJ which is the
original high strength and low weight tangent spoke design. This
predates the use of the interlaced spoke , a method of economy.

Despite this being specifically pointed out to Jobst, he continued to
claim that tying and soldering was purely to retain a spoke in the
event of failure and the use of tying and soldering for structural
reasons was secondary to interlacing of spokes. Whether Jobst has
been deliberately or innocently ignorent or simply lying, I don't
know. His continuation of spouting the same rubbish despite these
'errors' being exposed is clearly fraudulent.

Jim Rogers wrote:

The problem is that Jobst attacks anyone who uses even the most
innocuous and normal enhancements to their writing as hiding behind
"fluff." Just search usenet. If you say something is "very small," or
talk about a "vast majority," or say that you "would suggest"
something, or use the common phrase "a friend of mine," just see how
he will come down on you.

Since he violated his own rule on simple writing, I could not resist
pointing it out using his own style. However, judging by his
responses, I'm not sure he's getting it.

And it has been very entertaining to the vast majority I would suggest!

No where did I ever criticize his knowledge of wheels, nor would I.

It didn't appear to me that you did.

JS.

Lou Holtman wrote:
On 5 jan, 23:36, James wrote:
wrote:
On Jan 5, 2:45 pm, Duane H bert wrote:
On 1/5/2011 4:35 PM, wrote:
Duane H bert 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?
I think what I wrote is unambiguous enough to not be misinterpreted.
You might review the FAQ on what holds the rim off the ground:
What's ambiguous is that you're saying that frames have practically no
elasticity but what about their ability to absorb vibration? We're
talking about what makes bikes more comfortable. My CF bike seems to
absorb the road vibration better than my last aluminum bike.
the point that some people make is that comfort does not depend on
material but in angles, tires, geometry, etc. In other words, an al
bike with a 71 degree seat angle and a 45 cm chainstay length with 25c
tires inflated to 80psi will be more comfortable than a tight racing
CF frame with 23C tires pumped to 120psi.
Yet, what if i like a tight racing geometry frame and i want to pump
tires to 120psi? In that case, in my experience, as in yours, CF, is
more comfortable than Al.
Im not talking about the old Alan or Vitus frames. I am talking about
the modern Kinesis, Easton (and other brands) oversized al frames
that sell nowadays.
I didn't believe the hype about harsh al frames. So, i bought an al
frame, move all my components from a KHS steel frame (very similar
geometry) and tried the al frame. Boy, keeping everything the same
except for the frame, i was in for a big surprised. There wasn't just
a difference. It was significant. I stopped going down this particular
bumpy road for fear of undoing a fixed bridge in my mouth that
resulted from a bike accident in 1995. On that frame, every little
road bump was felt on every bone.
I kept that frame for a few months before disposing it in ebay and
moving the components to a ti frame that I had. Rattling and bouncing
quickly disappeared and once I lost fear of going down bumpy road I
returned to it and realized that it wasn't that bumpy.
Note that I am not particularly sensitive to the way bikes feel. I
don't claim to notice major differences between tire bead, thickness
weight, etc. Nor do i claim to notice differences between wheels rims,
spokes and such. I don't give a F__ck about weight. My road bike with
stuff weighs about 30lbs. I ride regularly with roadies on $3000 plus
bikes and keep up no problem (except for hills). In fact I owe and
ride very inecpesnive bikes.
But, but, but.... Aluminum is just another story. i noticed a
huuuugeee difference. In fact, It almost made me stop enjoying cycling
for a while, although i've been riding for 25 years and love it.
Do i have scientific evidence that al sucks. No. It is just IMHO.
Hence why Al frame manufacturers went to CF seat stays, etc. on an Al
main triangle.

JS.- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -

- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -

No that was just marketing BS. CF rear ends are almost disappeared
nowadays on AL frames, because it was expensive and did no good at
all. Now it is skinny seatstays and 27.2 mm seatposts with a setback.

Probably cheaper to produce with similar effect.

Have you seen http://www.sheldonbrown.com/rinard/fea.htm ?

It is obvious a frame does flex going over bumps, albeit little.
Material choice, tube cross section and frame geometry all have a part
to play. (As do wheels, tyres, seat, forks, etc.)

JS.

wrote:

I, of course attribute my ability to stay with the uber carbon cyclist
with my cheap chromoly bike to my superb riding skills. It is a myth
that I love to preserve. "Andres can keep up with his super heavy
bike. Imagine how strong he would be with a pinarello Dogma". I have
to give others an edge ;-)

Ha! I was accused of riding a dinosaur last Saturday. I laughed and
said, "Yes, but I don't see you ever beating me!" He never will either,
despite the top of the range Trek he rides.

JS.

On Jan 6, 8:30*am, " wrote:

Carbon has replaced mixed frames because its super cheap to do. You
can buy an outstanding carbon frame on ebay for less than $300 and
they are essentially the same ones that everybody sells for $1,000
plus. The only companies that still make their carbon frames at home
are Time, Trek for the Madone, and a few others. Every other uber
expensive CF frame is made in a Chinese factory and shipped to the
respective country.

I know what you mean, "production" CF frames are made by and large in
China, but there are at least few custom builders in the USA.

Crumpton, for one. Plugging my homeboy, you bet...
--D-y

On Jan 6, 2:57*pm, James wrote:
wrote:
I, of course attribute my ability to stay with the uber carbon cyclist
with my cheap chromoly bike to my superb riding skills. It is a myth
that I love to preserve. "Andres can keep up with his super heavy
bike. Imagine how strong he would be with a pinarello Dogma". I have
to give others an edge ;-)

Ha! *I was accused of riding a dinosaur last Saturday. *I laughed and
said, "Yes, but I don't see you ever beating me!" *He never will either,
* despite the top of the range Trek he rides.

I've ridden with people who could beat me in a hill sprint on one bike
but not another (touring versus racing). One person in particular
comes to mind, but both of his bikes were steel. Back then, everyone
rode steel except for a few individualists on Vitus frames -- and a
rare Klein. But a few pounds and tire profile can make a difference
between two closely matched riders. We all can beat poseurs while
riding our beater bikes, but if you take someone who is strong -- and
your equal -- and put him or her on a much lighter bike, be prepared
to suffer. I get throttled much worse when my riding buddy is on his
light bike, and I always try to convince him that it is a fender day
and that he should ride his cross bike. -- Jay Beattie.

Jay Beattie wrote:
On Jan 6, 2:57 pm, James wrote:
wrote:
I, of course attribute my ability to stay with the uber carbon cyclist
with my cheap chromoly bike to my superb riding skills. It is a myth
that I love to preserve. "Andres can keep up with his super heavy
bike. Imagine how strong he would be with a pinarello Dogma". I have
to give others an edge ;-)
Ha! I was accused of riding a dinosaur last Saturday. I laughed and
said, "Yes, but I don't see you ever beating me!" He never will either,
despite the top of the range Trek he rides.

I've ridden with people who could beat me in a hill sprint on one bike
but not another (touring versus racing).

Obviously I would be much slower if I rode my MTB too. The fellow I
spoke of was comparing his latest/greatest Trek incarnation with my new
steel racing bike (8.5kg dry, ~25" frame). Just because it isn't made
of plastic and fibres, in his mind, it is a dinosaur.

But a few pounds and tire profile can make a difference
between two closely matched riders. We all can beat poseurs while
riding our beater bikes, but if you take someone who is strong -- and
your equal -- and put him or her on a much lighter bike, be prepared
to suffer. I get throttled much worse when my riding buddy is on his
light bike, and I always try to convince him that it is a fender day
and that he should ride his cross bike. -- Jay Beattie.

Yes~! We know when one guy is tired because he rides his racing bike on
training rides, hoping for an easier time.

JS.

On Jan 6, 1:34*pm, "Steve Freides" wrote:

Wow. *Do you care that you needed a small novel to explain yourself?


Nope.

Do you care that you're 0 for 2 in getting the point of my posts?

--Jim

On Jan 6, 4:48*pm, James wrote:
Jim Rogers wrote:
The problem is that Jobst attacks anyone who uses even the most
innocuous and normal enhancements to their writing as hiding behind
"fluff." Just search usenet. If you say something is "very small," or
talk about a "vast majority," or say that you "would suggest"
something, or use the common phrase "a friend of mine," *just see how
he will come down on you.

Since he violated his own rule on simple writing, I could not resist
pointing it out using his own style. However, judging by his
responses, I'm not sure he's getting it.

And it has been very entertaining to the vast majority I would suggest!

No where did I ever criticize his knowledge of wheels, nor would I.

It didn't appear to me that you did.

JS.

Thanks. If I do say so myself, I think I do a spot-on impression of
Jobst. Glad someone appreciated it!

--Jim

Jim Rogers wrote:
On Jan 6, 1:34 pm, "Steve Freides" wrote:

Wow. Do you care that you needed a small novel to explain yourself?


Nope.

OK, then. You fit right in on any of the bicycling newsgroups.

Do you care that you're 0 for 2 in getting the point of my posts?

--Jim

I got the second one.

Do I care? A little, yes, that's why I responded, but I think I'm done
with this subject for now, thank you.

-S-