Tips on carbon fiber WSD bikes?

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.

Lou

On 1/5/2011 5:36 PM, James wrote:
wrote:
On Jan 5, 2:45 pm, Duane Hébert wrote:
On 1/5/2011 4:35 PM, wrote:



Duane Hébert 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.

When I bought the Tarmac, I was actually looking at a Secteur which is
al but with carbon fork, chain stay and seat post. I test rode it and
it was quite nice but the frame was a bit small. The LBS guy was going
to prep a larger frame but had a Tarmac from last year with the size I
wanted so I tried that one. I ended up buying the Tarmac but mostly
because of the price.

I was surprised to see how much difference the carbon made on the
Secteur. I had already tried the Allez which is complete AL and decided
against it, mostly due to the ride.

All three of these bikes had basically the same Shimano 105 setup, the
same seat and even the same Mavic wheels. Tires weren't exactly the
same but all were at 120psi. The geometries are not exactly the same but
I think they are close. The carbon frame was definitely less harsh. It
was the same road although it was only 30km test ride each time. I
certainly have the impression that the carbon was less jarring and
definitely dampened the road buzz.

On Jan 6, 12:15*am, 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.

Lou

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. Apparently, if the frame is painted and built in
Italy, it can have a made in It tag while it was fully made in China
and Taiwan and have a full setup of japanese and chinese or taiwanese
components. Yet, it can still say Italian. Pinarello, which makes some
of the most expensive bikes in the world apparently got caught a few
years ago shipping bikes from asia directly to suppliers in the US.
They make the dogma, which is an uber expensive frame because it is
"asymmetric". Of course, you all know that this asymmetry accounts for
the differential forces that a cyclist puts in drive and non drive
side of the bike compensating and balancing the distribution of power.
This scientific advancements will make you a much faster and efficient
cyclist than if you ride, say, on a specialized, or even a chromoly
frame. Of course, some chinese manufacturers will make you a replica
pinarello with the same paint scheme, tube shapes, curly looking fork,
etc for $450.

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 ;-)

Actually, I know quite a lot about Jobst.

He's been a serious biking enthusiast/guru since the 1950's. Served in
the U.S. army in Europe, worked for Porche in the 1960's and for many
years at HP (in hard drive engineering). A former Cat 1 racer, he
rides 10-12,000 miles a year in the northern California area and
annually tours the Alps.

A contemporary and friend of such biking luminaries as Tom Ritchie,
and a consultant to Avocet, he has had important contributions to the
bicycling industries, notably the Avocet road slicks and computers he
designed and preferred for many years. Even designed the Ritchie logo!

Carries an unbelievably light load no matter what-- for local rides a
small tin that includes such interesting items as the head of a BIC
razor, a P38 can opener a Ritchey CPR9 multi tool, and a 3" crescent
wrench. For longer tours, not much more-- basically 10 lbs of items in
a Carridice Nelson (non-longflap) attached to the seat by a quick
release of his own design.

Had a red frame fillet brazed by Tom Ritchie that was crashed and
replaced by a yellow frame made by Peter Johnson.

Had the pedal holes in his cranks chamfered to 45 degrees to match a
collet inserted on the pedal axle to prevent crank breakage. Still
uses a 52/48 chainring setup as a vestige of the old half step gearing
days (which he does not like). Oils chains at gas stations with the
residual in discarded oil containers.

Does not believe in transporting bikes outside of the car (thus the
affinity for station wagons).

Speaking of which, he started with a Chevy II wagon and moved up to a
Volvo 245 and then to a Volvo 740 (do you still have that, Jobst?).
Uses tin for newsgroup reading. Has a son named Olaf.

Yes, he literally wrote the book on wheels-- a book I've owned and
used to build wheels since 1995.

A few of his likes:

Slick 25mm tires
Silca pumps (with Campy heads)
36 spoke wheels
Steel frames
Non-aero brake handles
Standard side pull calipers (for low cosine error)
Shimano freehubs (just changed to a 7 speed setup recently after years
of axle breakage using suntour Ultra 6 freewheels)
MA2 rims (loves socketed spoke holes)
Plastic saddles
Clipless pedals with Shimano spd's-- wears them at work and on tour
without scratching floors or tracking mud
Threadless stems
Steel handlebars with constant radius

A few of his dislikes:

Almost anything that differs from the "likes" listed above.
People not using real names on usenet
Jacked up trucks/SUV's painted black with tinted windows
Manual transmissions
Boxer engines
Air-cooled engines
VW Beetles (an exercise in bad engineering)
Modern tube patching systems


Have I passed the "you don't know Jobst" quiz yet? This was compiled
in about 15 minutes from memory over my lunch break-- give me an hour
and I could easily double it.

So, yes, I do know the person to whom I speak.

In fact I agree with about 90% of what he says, and over the years my
bikes have become quite "Jobstian." In fact, anytime I have a bike
question, I search usenet for the opinions of Sheldon Brown, Andy
Muzi, and Jobst Brandt. Any answer they agree on I consider to be
correct.

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.

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

--Jim

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

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.

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

-S-

On Jan 6, 4:24*am, " wrote:
On Jan 5, 8:40*pm, thirty-six wrote:



On Jan 6, 12:44*am, "Steve Freides" wrote:

Jim Rogers wrote:
On Jan 5, 3:52 pm, wrote:
Jim Rogers wrote:
It doesn't need to be exceptionally low because the rim distributed
spoke stiffness circumferentially if it isn't terminally radially
flexible, and fails to transfer the stiffness of spokes around the
rim.
Really? "Exceptionally low?" Are you sure it wasn't "exceptionally
exceptionally low?"

Exceptional, because such rims are not readily available because they
are useless for bicycling but apply to the circumstances described..

What is this "readily" stuff? Are these rims available or not?

Please leave the fluff out of your writing. People who use such
modifiers are generally trying to use bluff and bluster to cover
their lack of understanding.

You're probably correct there. I suppose I should have mad my
response a few sentences longer to cover that problem.

You suppose? Either you should have or you should not have. This is a
technical newsgroup and we are not interested in suppositions.

And why "a few sentences" longer? Could you not have simply said your
response should have been been longer? How many are a "few?" What are
you trying to hide with all these extra fluff words in your writing?

Simplify!

At least that's what a "friend of mine" once told me. Are you sure

he was your-friend and not just a friend known to other bikies?

He's a friend of all and a great critic of extraneous modifiers in
writing. Take his advice!

--Jim

Fascinating that anyone has the chutzpah to try and explain how bicycle
wheels work to Jobst. *The man literally wrote the book, and he does not
waste words, either. *I don't know who you are, Jim, but you don't know
to whom you're talking.

Mind you, I don't agree with everything Jobst says, but the last thing
I'm going to disagree with him about is the way a bicycle wheel works..

-S-

http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=r9ZuAAAAEBAJ

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.

*A tied and soldered wheel constructed in this manner far beats any
method described by JB in terms of load capacity, tracking, general
stability, avoidance of buckling (rather smelly things), specifically
lateral stability (torsional as Rudge describes it), climbing and
sprinting efficiency.

The interlaced spoke wheel came lalter as an economy measure with the
claim that it was as good as a tied and soldered wheel. *It never was
and still isn't. *It remains a production method for cheap bicycles
where a wheel can be built in about 5 minutes. *In UK, the tied and
soldered wheel still lived on as racing and heavy duty touring
equipment where requested by wheelbuilders who had the skill. *Mostly
this had been long forgotton by about 1990, new shop owners
uninterested in aquiring the skills to mark them above the rest. *Many
takeovers from the old mechanics failed and the businesses folded
within two years, the knowledge just was not there to sustain the
business.

the skill to tie and solder wheels? what skill? To wrap the crosses
with solder and you heat up. Why do that? Its a waste of time if a
properly built wheel will last you forever.

That is not how a tied and soldered wheel is correctly built. You're
ignorance is clear. It's not a waste, it improves wheel tracking under
heavy loading and rough conditions, permitting greater acceleration
during sprinting and faster climbing. The interlaced wheel is a
relatively poor performer, particularly on thick flanges. It is
suitable for economy bicycles only.

There are thousands of
heavy duty tourists, cycle cross racers, pro racers, track sprinters,
kerin racers and pro cyclists that put a hell of abuse on their wheels
and yet they do great. If applying and melting some solder around the
spokes would strengthen the wheels, everyone would do it. Fact is,
Regular built wheels are pretty good. and plenty strong.

Common interlaced wheels suffer from poor lateral stability when using
thick flanged hubs. The original tangent wheel was tied and soldered
and superior to the economy interlaced wheel.

Op 6-1-2011 15:30, schreef:
On Jan 6, 12:15 am, Lou wrote:
On 5 jan, 23:36, wrote:









wrote:
On Jan 5, 2:45 pm, Duane H 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.

Lou

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. Apparently, if the frame is painted and built in
Italy, it can have a made in It tag while it was fully made in China
and Taiwan and have a full setup of japanese and chinese or taiwanese
components. Yet, it can still say Italian. Pinarello, which makes some
of the most expensive bikes in the world apparently got caught a few
years ago shipping bikes from asia directly to suppliers in the US.
They make the dogma, which is an uber expensive frame because it is
"asymmetric". Of course, you all know that this asymmetry accounts for
the differential forces that a cyclist puts in drive and non drive
side of the bike compensating and balancing the distribution of power.
This scientific advancements will make you a much faster and efficient
cyclist than if you ride, say, on a specialized, or even a chromoly
frame. Of course, some chinese manufacturers will make you a replica
pinarello with the same paint scheme, tube shapes, curly looking fork,
etc for $450.

Don't you think the Taiwanese or Chinese factories can produce different
quality frames?
You can say all you want about Pinarello's but their finish is
impeccable in contrast to several high end TREK's I saw with offset
rearends, flaked off paint and off color forks. To some people an
impeccable finish is worth something. FYI Pinarello's are not my cup off
thea either but if you think every CF that leaves the Taiwanese factory
is the same you are mistaken.

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 ;-)

Good for you.

Lou

On Jan 6, 6:42*am, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° ""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" wrote:
On 1/5/2011 10:24 PM, aka Andr s Muro wrote:



On Jan 5, 8:40 pm, *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.

* A tied and soldered wheel constructed in this manner far beats any
method described by JB in terms of load capacity, tracking, general
stability, avoidance of buckling (rather smelly things), specifically
lateral stability (torsional as Rudge describes it), climbing and
sprinting efficiency.

The interlaced spoke wheel came lalter as an economy measure with the
claim that it was as good as a tied and soldered wheel. *It never was
and still isn't. *It remains a production method for cheap bicycles
where a wheel can be built in about 5 minutes. *In UK, the tied and
soldered wheel still lived on as racing and heavy duty touring
equipment where requested by wheelbuilders who had the skill. *Mostly
this had been long forgotton by about 1990, new shop owners
uninterested in aquiring the skills to mark them above the rest. *Many
takeovers from the old mechanics failed and the businesses folded
within two years, the knowledge just was not there to sustain the
business.

the skill to tie and solder wheels? what skill? To wrap the crosses
with solder and you heat up. Why do that? Its a waste of time if a
properly built wheel will last you forever. There are thousands of
heavy duty tourists, cycle cross racers, pro racers, track sprinters,
kerin racers and pro cyclists that put a hell of abuse on their wheels
and yet they do great. If applying and melting some solder around the
spokes would strengthen the wheels, everyone would do it. Fact is,
Regular built wheels are pretty good. and plenty strong.

Remember that Trevor lives in an alternate Universe.

Spokes are *tied* with bee keeper's wire [1], then soldered (assuming
one believes in the Myth & Lore .)

T&S is performed on non-interlaced spokes.
Specifically, the binding wire is soldered to the spokes so that there
is no sliding of the spokes. The thickening of the junction of the
spokes also reduces bending of the spokes, which takes place due to
tension differential. With 28 and more spokes, the T&S procedure is
performed in two places. The second binding, nearest the hub, ensures
the best exit angle for the inner spokes meaning the load is taken
upon the spoke elbow rather than the spoke head.


[1] E.g.
http://www.cyclingcloseouts.com/Products/DT-Swiss-ProLine-Beekeepers-....

--
T m Sherm n - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

On Jan 6, 1:31*pm, Lou Holtman wrote:
Op 6-1-2011 15:30, schreef:



On Jan 6, 12:15 am, Lou *wrote:
On 5 jan, 23:36, *wrote:

wrote:
On Jan 5, 2:45 pm, Duane H *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.

Lou

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. Apparently, if the frame is painted and built in
Italy, it can have a made in It tag while it was fully made in China
and Taiwan and have a full setup of japanese and chinese or taiwanese
components. Yet, it can still say Italian. Pinarello, which makes some
of the most expensive bikes in the world apparently got caught a few
years ago shipping bikes from asia directly to suppliers in the US.
They make the dogma, which is an uber expensive frame because it is
"asymmetric". Of course, you all know that this asymmetry accounts for
the differential forces that a cyclist puts in drive and non drive
side of the bike compensating and balancing the distribution of power.
This scientific advancements will make you a much faster and efficient
cyclist than if you ride, say, on a specialized, or even a chromoly
frame. Of course, some chinese manufacturers will make you a replica
pinarello with the same paint scheme, tube shapes, curly looking fork,
etc for $450.

Don't you think the Taiwanese or Chinese factories can produce different
quality frames?
You can say all you want about Pinarello's but their finish is
impeccable in contrast to several high end TREK's I saw with offset
rearends, flaked off paint and off color forks. To some people an
impeccable finish is worth something. FYI Pinarello's are not my cup off
thea either but if you think every CF that leaves the Taiwanese factory
is the same you are mistaken.

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 ;-)

Good for you.

Lou

I am sure that different companies will specify different qualities of
paint, different finishes, different processes, etc. However, the
building is ultimately mechanized. Very likely, some companies have
better quality controls and discard poorly finished product. But, the
machines that produce one frame or the other are the same.

El Paso used to be the garment capital of the US, before it went,
first to mexico, then to china, pakistan, central america etc. Sun
apparel, for example, one of the big jean makers and one of the last
ones to close used to make jeans for rustler, costco, sams, levis,
kalvin klein, and many others I had a friend who worked there. The
production process, QC was pretty much the same for everything.
Differences were mostly in the desgign cut, stitching, dieing,
weathering and to a smaller extent the material. It cost sun apparel
approximately the same to make wranglers, sams, costco's or Calvin
Kleins. Yet, at the store, the CKs will cost you 500 to 1000% more
because you were paying for publicity, design, cut, etc.

With bikes, it is pretty much the same. A lot of what you pay for
pinarello is advertising, tradition, riding the same bike as pedro
delgado, miguel indurain, grewall, etc.

One, a well known builder from california told me that 1980s japanese
bikes had = quality tubing and better finish than the top italian
frames. Yet, the italian frames would go for 200% more. You could get
a Bridgestone with Ishiwata 022 seamless tubes, a Centurion with Tange
number one or a miyata with their house tubes tubes and the frame
would run around $200 to $300. A colnago, pinarello, cinelli, basso,
etc with SL tubing would run anywhere from $450 to $1000. yet, the
tubes were comparable and the finish of the asian bikes was way
superior. For the Euro bikes you were essentially paying for the
mystique. Of course, no serious racer would be caught dead riding a
centurion, nishiki, miyata, etc. Since pros rode italian, they rode
italian.

Note that I've had 3 italian frames over the years that rode very
nice. Like someone said in a different thread, I was conned into
thinking that they were better than their asian counterparts.