Tips on carbon fiber WSD bikes?

Peter Cole wrote:
On 1/4/2011 4:34 PM, Duane Hébert wrote:
On 1/4/2011 4:25 PM, Michael Press wrote:
In ,
wrote:

Michael Press wrote:
In ,
Duane wrote:

On 1/3/2011 3:45 PM, Chalo wrote:
Duane Hébert wrote:
Jay Beattie wrote:
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.
Jay, are you replying to me or to Chalo? I suspect that he works
in a
shop but I'm certain that I don'tg
Hey, maybe you should consider it! "Vélocipèdes Artisanales par
Maître Douain Hébert." Sounds expensive.
LOL. But I'm afraid that if it doesn't start with

int main() {

I'm going to be lost.

I am positive you meant to write int main(void) {


If std C, more likely

int main(int argc, char **argv)

Note that the opening '{' is on the next line.

But if C++? Well, why bother. C is the one true programming language.
Use assembly only in extreme cases.

Yes, in fact, I put the opening brace on the next line;
but that is another kettle of worms.

Yep. We have 5 SEs in my group and we had problems
arriving at a consensus.


There is only One True Bracketing Style:

http://www.google.com/#q=1tbs


It's not just whether it's on the next line but
how many spaces to indent. Seems like we should have better things to
waste our time on.

Ugh. I went to interpreted, dynamically typed languages decades ago and
never looked back.


ditto.


--
Tad McClellan
email: perl -le "print scalar reverse qq/moc.liamg\100cm.j.dat/"
The above message is a Usenet post.
I don't recall having given anyone permission to use it on a Web site.

On 1/4/2011 8:49 AM, SMS aka Steven M. Scharf wrote:
[...]
Understandably, the whole marketing push for carbon fiber bicycles
carefully avoids calling the tubing material by its real name, or
acronym, carbon fiber reinforced plastic, or CFRP. No one wants to use
the P word.

Scharf should know that CFRP stands for Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer.
^^^^^^^
"Plastic" refers to unrecoverable deformation.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

On 1/4/2011 11:39 AM, SMS aka Steven M. Scharf 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.

Scharf should realize that for a given casing construction, tread, and
inflation pressure, a wider tire has *less* rolling resistance.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

On 1/4/2011 4:04 PM, Jay Beattie wrote:
[...]
The first link is lateral stiffness. The second link does talk about
frontal/radial stiffness and makes me wonder why anyone would buy a
wheel with spoke tension so low that it would allow rim deformation
under normal load[...]

Uh, because they live on Planet Trevor?

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

On 1/4/2011 5:33 PM, aka Jobst Brandt wrote:
[...]
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/rinard/wheel/grignon.htm

That doesn't sound like a good ruling. If this is a bicycle event
then competitors should use comparable equipment, which Moser did not.

That is a Luddite view.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

On 5 jan, 06:39, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° ""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" wrote:
On 1/4/2011 11:39 AM, SMS aka Steven M. Scharf 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.

Scharf should realize that for a given casing construction, tread, and
inflation pressure, a wider tire has *less* rolling resistance.


and you should know that in that case the narrower tire is more
comfortable.

Lou

Jay Beattie wrote:

Chalo wrote:

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

We need to have a discussion some time about stiff wheels. *I'm having
trouble conceptualizing how an adequately tensioned wheel would not be
radially stiff (not talking laterally). I hear talk from various racer
buddies about how one wheel or another is super stiff and a "secret
weapon" (another over-used advertising term) in sprints, etc., which
suggests to me that a wheel can be radially limp some how, at least
relatively speaking.

I'm talking about lateral stiffness. I think you're exactly right
about radial (and torsional) wheel stiffness-- anything soft enough to
be discernible would be flimsy enough to break up almost
immediately.

I believe lateral flex in wheels, in small amounts, masquerades as
frame flex when pedaling hard. More than a little bit of lateral
wheel flex destabilizes tracking and the wheels themselves, and
becomes identifiable as wheel flex.

If you live with Trevor on Planet Wherever, your bike might have
wheels that act as suspension in the vertical plane. But in my
extensive observation, Earth wheels don't do that. Misconceptions
along these lines by Earth cycle racers would be characteristic of the
heady blend of optimism, superstition, marketing bull****, ancient
lore, one-upsmanship and pipe dreams that passes for conventional
wisdom among that narrow demographic group.

Chalo

Jay Beattie wrote:

James wrote:

When I made the swap from Ultegra Hubs, 28 spoke front and rear CXP30s
to 32 spoke OpenPro on Mavic hubs, same tyres, same pressure (as near as
my floor pump can be used), the OpenPro wheels _felt_ like they rode
bumps around corners with less jitter across the road.

You must have Princess and the Pea sensibilities. *I switch between
Open Pros and Aeroheads and old MA2s and Open 4CDs and can't tell the
difference when using the same tire. *

He did specify that the difference was noticeable when cornering on
bumps, which is a time when the wheels are loaded out of plane and
thus a time when a less-stiff wheel would flex more. Whether this
effect could be noticeable in the context of other flex in the system
(and particularly in the context deflection in the tires) is outside
my experience, but it isn't completely out of the question. Road bike
wheels are pretty wimpy.

Chalo

On 1/4/2011 11:32 PM, Lou Holtman wrote:
On 5 jan, 06:39, Tºm Shermªn™ °_°""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" wrote:
On 1/4/2011 11:39 AM, SMS aka Steven M. Scharf 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.

Scharf should realize that for a given casing construction, tread, and
inflation pressure, a wider tire has *less* rolling resistance.


and you should know that in that case the narrower tire is more
comfortable.

Apparently a lot of people make the same mistake regarding rolling
resistance. Sheldon goes into it on his web site. The key thing to
remember is that you must look at rolling resistance at the pressure
appropriate for each tire, and the narrower tires are intended to be
inflated to a higher pressure.

There's no free lunch here. As you point out, if you under-inflate the
narrower tire buy inflating it to the same pressure as the wider tire
then the narrower tire will ride less harshly than the wider tire. Yeah,
a 700x47c tire inflated to its maximum pressure of 58 psi will have less
rolling resistance than an 145 psi 700x23c tire inflated to 58 psi.
Actually the 700x23c tire may just fall off the rim, while cornering, at
58 psi, which would be _really_ uncomfortable!

On 1/4/2011 4:53 PM, James wrote:
Duane Hébert wrote:
On 1/4/2011 4:25 PM, Michael Press wrote:
In ,
wrote:

Michael Press wrote:
In ,
Duane wrote:

On 1/3/2011 3:45 PM, Chalo wrote:
Duane Hébert wrote:
Jay Beattie wrote:
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.
Jay, are you replying to me or to Chalo? I suspect that he works
in a
shop but I'm certain that I don'tg
Hey, maybe you should consider it! "Vélocipèdes Artisanales
par
Maître Douain Hébert." Sounds expensive.
LOL. But I'm afraid that if it doesn't start with

int main() {

I'm going to be lost.

I am positive you meant to write int main(void) {


If std C, more likely

int main(int argc, char **argv)

Note that the opening '{' is on the next line.

But if C++? Well, why bother. C is the one true programming language.
Use assembly only in extreme cases.

Yes, in fact, I put the opening brace on the next line;
but that is another kettle of worms.

Yep. We have 5 SEs in my group and we had problems
arriving at a consensus. It's not just whether it's on the next line
but how many spaces to indent. Seems like we should have better things
to waste our time on.

The answer is not to use spaces but a single 8 char width tab, as in;

int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
int c;

for (c = 0; c 5; c++) {
printf("c = %d\n", c);
}

return 0;
}

(Note that the news readers may translate the tab I used to 8 spaces -
ugh).

Which is why we don't allow tabs in our coding standard. With our IDE
(VS) you can set it to replace tabs with spaces and this works well. We
also have to develop for Linux and the same code is used in different
IDEs so converting to spaces is what we've found to work best.

I try to adhere to the rules from the guru;

/usr/src/linux/Documentation/CodingStyle

Stroustrup has nothing about coding style on his pages
afaict.