Tips on carbon fiber WSD bikes?

On Jan 3, 10:15*pm, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Jan 3, 10:12*am, landotter wrote:

On Jan 3, 11:54*am, Chalo wrote:

I agree that the OP shouldn't get hung up on marketing details or
materials, but owning any bike that can't accommodate at least a 28mm
tire is just a stupid thing to do, even if you are a bantamweight.

Indeed. Even if the OP continues to use 23s, which are fine for her
small mass, there might be a temptation to go on a gravel road ride,
or do a wet brevet with fenders.

I ride gravel roads and *trails all the time on 23s -- crappy float
over the loose stuff, but they work fine and don't puncture. *I used
to race on 20mm tires, including the whole spring season with endless
rainy road races. Wider tires do have their uses, however.http://www.flickr.com/photos/scurvyknaves/5158947638/*I was going to
switch to my fatty tires this weekend for commuting, but I didn't get
around to it.-- Jay Beattie.

Everyone raced on the 20mm Avocets. Rode some vintage ones on a
restore a while back. Didn't feel fast--felt nervous. ;-)

I rode 23s everywhere myself for a number of years. I'm bad about
checking pressure every day, so had more snakebites than patience.
Plus, narrower tread wears faster. Went to 25s, which were better, and
settled on 32mm paselas, as they're still light and fast (same
unscientific time on a 8 mile course as skinny Vredesteins) and also
wear long, and ride like butter.

I wouldn't demand that a road bike fit 32s, like mine does, but if it
fits 28s or 25s with fenders, it gives you options for free. Why not?

On Jan 3, 10:15*pm, Jay Beattie wrote:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/scurvyknaves/5158947638/*

We had a local cross race in the snow and 15F a couple weeks ago.
Brutal.

On 1/4/2011 9:33 AM, landotter wrote:

I wouldn't demand that a road bike fit 32s, like mine does, but if it
fits 28s or 25s with fenders, it gives you options for free. Why not?

There are times of the year when 32s are really nice to be able to
install, and times when the lower rolling resistance of the narrower 23s
is desirable. 23-32 is not an unreasonable range to insist upon for a
road bike.

On Jan 4, 2:28*am, Michael Press wrote:
In article
,
*Jay Beattie wrote:





On Jan 3, 10:28*am, Duane Hébert wrote:
On 1/3/2011 1:02 PM, Chalo wrote:

Jay Beattie wrote:

And as far as cost goes, high end steel goes for $2K-
$3K frame alone, which I think is ridiculous, no matter how magical
the Bohemian builder might be. *It's f****** metal fab!

If I ever get to the point where I will spend 3k on a frame, it would
probably be a steel lugged custom Marinoni. *Not likely soon.

http://www.marinoni.qc.ca/IndexEn.html

A $3k steel frame is a work of art (good or bad) that is specially
conceived for the user and unique in its details. *Just like if you're
buying jewelry or a gun, if you want something unique and handmade
from the best materials, you'll pay a surcharge for the privilege.

+1

A $3k carbon frame is a very expensive plastic waffle from a very
expensive mold.

I'm not sure I agree here but I'm not at the level where I would
appreciate the differences in a 3k carbon frame. *But I got a complete
bike for $2k that was cheaper than a similar steel bike.

A $3k aluminum frame, if there is one, is a practical joke.

+1

Except that it is not true. *Tooling and machinery to make proprietary
hydroformed aluminum tubing are not cheap, nor are heat treating ovens/
tanks, TIG torches, etc. *No lugs are used, but dynafiling, clean up
and all the other work associated with metal frames applies to
aluminum -- at least to a top-end aluminum frame. Not true of Nashbar
$90 frames, obviously.

The molds for CF are not cheap, assuming molds are used -- and the
materials are expensive and proprietary, including internal lugs, BB
shells, fiber weaves and orientation, etc., etc. *Trek is spending
money on design and product development. *Calfee and others make
custom CF which does not involve popping out waffles, but even some of
the waffles represent expensive and complicated (and proprietary)
processes.

In contrast, I can buy a box of 525 tubing and braze it up in adult ed
metal shop -- and since I am not like you and do not work in a shop,
that is where I go to fix my steel frames.

BTW,.I saw award winners at the hand-built bicycle show who had built
five or ten frames. *File, file, file and make it pretty. *God only
knows how long they will last. *And yes, the TT maybe longer or
shorter by a couple of mms, and you can call that custom, but not
very. *Most people do not need custom bikes -- not with the advent of
seat posts over 210mm and stems in a variety of lengths and rises. I
worked with a frame builder 30 years ago and worked on my own frames
and have a good idea of what it takes. *I appreciate the artisan
aspect of the job -- but gawdamighty $4K for a Sachs frame? It's a
damn frame and not piping at a nuke plant. *I would rather spend
$2,500 and go to Ashland for two weeks to make my own frame.
http://www.bikeschool.com/classes/fr...s/cromoly-braz...
I love Ashland -- great riding in the Siskiyous.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ajmstudios/4498524566/
http://www.outdoorexposurephoto.com/...ravel_Stock_Im...
Stay at my brother-in-laws and still come home with a spare $1K. --

Setting the stem, seat post and saddle is done only
after the frame is exactly fitted. Compensating for bad
top tube length, bad seat tube length, bad seat tube
angle, bad chain stay length is hell on Earth. Get the
frame dimensions correct first.

But what is bad? I have a 60cm cross-bike and a 63cm road bike. Both
fit me beautifully, but they have different geometry, stay length, ST
length, BB height -- but about the same TT length. If I changed any
of the parameters to suit my tastes, e.g., adjusting chain stay
length, then the bikes would ride differently.

Two people with the same height, weight, femur length,
inseam, arm length will not necessarily be fitted to
the same frame. There is room for custom frames, and
not only as an indulgence.

I sort of agree, subject to exceptions: two identical riders generally
will take the same frame size in the SAME bike (assuming no orthopedic
imbalances, etc.) Now, if one rider prefers a more upright position
or more stability decending or lower stand over, all those things can
be changed, but then we're getting in to chocolate and vanilla -- the
two riders will have different riding bikes. Go far enough, and one
will have a racing bike and the other will have a touring bike.

BUT, some frame changes will not affect (impact) handling very much.
Trek has recently come up with two versions of the "same" bike --
Madone models with conventional racing geometry ("pro" fit) and models
with a more upright position, viz., effectively shorter top tube and
longer head tube ("performance" fit). Oddly, the stated effective TT
is the same on the pro and the performance. In fact, all the relevant
parameters are the same for my 62cm size except for HT length and
"reach" -- which is the "effective, effective" TT length. By
extending the HT, hand position rises without using spacers, but the
cockpit is shortened (which, personally, I would hate since it is
already short enough). Wheel base, stay length, seat and head angles
all stay the same. So, I agree that there is some customization that
can be done to account for different riding styles and postures
without changing the fundamental character of the bike, but whether I
want some Bohemian with an art degree making that call, I don't know.
I'm perfectly happy making minor stem and seat post changes to make my
OTC frames perfect for me. -- Jay Beattie.

On 1/4/2011 12:39 PM, SMS wrote:
On 1/4/2011 9:33 AM, landotter wrote:

I wouldn't demand that a road bike fit 32s, like mine does, but if it
fits 28s or 25s with fenders, it gives you options for free. Why not?

There are times of the year when 32s are really nice to be able to
install, and times when the lower rolling resistance of the narrower 23s
is desirable. 23-32 is not an unreasonable range to insist upon for a
road bike.

When I need the 32s I use the touring bike. I think that I can fit 25s
on the Tarmac but not much wider. Not sure though. Anyway gives me an
excuse to keep the old bike.

On 1/3/2011 10:12 AM, landotter wrote:
On Jan 3, 11:54 am, wrote:

I agree that the OP shouldn't get hung up on marketing details or
materials, but owning any bike that can't accommodate at least a 28mm
tire is just a stupid thing to do, even if you are a bantamweight.


Indeed. Even if the OP continues to use 23s, which are fine for her
small mass, there might be a temptation to go on a gravel road ride,
or do a wet brevet with fenders.

Unlikely. Have you ever seen a Madone with fenders?! I'm sure that
somewhere someone has put fenders onto a CF road bike, but it's rare.

On Jan 4, 11:39*am, SMS wrote:
On 1/4/2011 9:33 AM, landotter wrote:

I wouldn't demand that a road bike fit 32s, like mine does, but if it
fits 28s or 25s with fenders, it gives you options for free. Why not?

There are times of the year when 32s are really nice to be able to
install, and times when the lower rolling resistance of the narrower 23s
is desirable. 23-32 is not an unreasonable range to insist upon for a
road bike.

A few high-end "fitness" bikes are coming with long reach calipers
these days, like the Jamis models I'm familiar with. Depending on how
high or low the caliper hole is, you can probably fit 32s on those, 28
with fenders. I've got a set of the long reach Tektros mounted quite
high, and 37mm cross tires fit with room for mud.

On Jan 4, 12:03*pm, SMS wrote:
On 1/3/2011 10:12 AM, landotter wrote:

On Jan 3, 11:54 am, *wrote:

I agree that the OP shouldn't get hung up on marketing details or
materials, but owning any bike that can't accommodate at least a 28mm
tire is just a stupid thing to do, even if you are a bantamweight.

Indeed. Even if the OP continues to use 23s, which are fine for her
small mass, there might be a temptation to go on a gravel road ride,
or do a wet brevet with fenders.

Unlikely. Have you ever seen a Madone with fenders?! I'm sure that
somewhere someone has put fenders onto a CF road bike, but it's rare.

UK Audax bikes aren't rare in carbon with eyelets. You don't see
Madones with fenders because they're not designed to take them, but
there's nothing incompatible with rain and carbon.

Jay Beattie wrote:

I've owned a half dozen beautiful, custom made steel frames. I
understand the art part, but I guess I've turned cheap, and the art
does not matter to me anymore. Sniff, sniff. *I've lost the art!

And yes, I would rather have a Turbo than a hand stretched Brooks. *I
would rather have my cookie-cutter Cannondale than any of my steel
frames -- which were olde-tyme SP and 531 boat anchors. In a 63cm
frame, that fattie aluminum makes a real difference. (caveat: I have
never owned a "modern steel" bike -- they may be better than
anything!)

Maybe if I drew some lugs on my Cannondale with a Sharpie, I could
revive the old excitement of owning a custom steel bike. *I still
oggle the Vanillas and other custom bikes I see here in PDX (there is
a custom frame builder under every-other rock in this town), but I no
longer get those pangs of "must . . . own . . . bike." It's more like
"must . . . put kid . . . through college."

I've only ever had one nice custom steel bike frame, with fat tubing
and unorthodox features. I went a lot of years without being able to
trust a skinny-tubed steel frame, and even a few more where they just
looked funny to me. Now I have four 68cm lugged steel frames with
traditional diameters, and I like them. I'm not sure I would like
riding them if they were made from lightweight tubing, but they
aren't. Neither are they delicately finished. They're just bikes,
from a time period when that was how a bike was made. Even a crude
version of a lugged steel frame has its charms.

Those frames seem a lot less flimsy and flexible when they are
equipped with stiff wheels, stems, and cranks.

Chalo

On 1/4/2011 3:09 PM, Chalo wrote:
Jay Beattie wrote:

I've owned a half dozen beautiful, custom made steel frames. I
understand the art part, but I guess I've turned cheap, and the art
does not matter to me anymore. Sniff, sniff. I've lost the art!

And yes, I would rather have a Turbo than a hand stretched Brooks. I
would rather have my cookie-cutter Cannondale than any of my steel
frames -- which were olde-tyme SP and 531 boat anchors. In a 63cm
frame, that fattie aluminum makes a real difference. (caveat: I have
never owned a "modern steel" bike -- they may be better than
anything!)

Maybe if I drew some lugs on my Cannondale with a Sharpie, I could
revive the old excitement of owning a custom steel bike. I still
oggle the Vanillas and other custom bikes I see here in PDX (there is
a custom frame builder under every-other rock in this town), but I no
longer get those pangs of "must . . . own . . . bike." It's more like
"must . . . put kid . . . through college."

I've only ever had one nice custom steel bike frame, with fat tubing
and unorthodox features. I went a lot of years without being able to
trust a skinny-tubed steel frame, and even a few more where they just
looked funny to me. Now I have four 68cm lugged steel frames with
traditional diameters, and I like them. I'm not sure I would like
riding them if they were made from lightweight tubing, but they
aren't. Neither are they delicately finished. They're just bikes,
from a time period when that was how a bike was made. Even a crude
version of a lugged steel frame has its charms.

Those frames seem a lot less flimsy and flexible when they are
equipped with stiff wheels, stems, and cranks.

I like the steel frames precisely because of the thin tubes.

Cannondale is probably one of the reasons that I don't like aluminum.
I had one around 20 years ago with the fat tubes. I was coming down a
mountain side in New Hampshire and I hit a pebble or something. The
frame started doing this harmonic hum that went through the fillings in
my teeth. Pretty scary at 60k/h.