Tips on carbon fiber WSD bikes?

Jay Beattie wrote:
On Jan 5, 5:50 am, Duane Hébert wrote:
On 1/4/2011 6:15 PM, wrote:

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?- Hide quoted text -

Assuming the same geometry, equipment, tires, etc., then yes, that is
what he is saying. Frame materials are inelastic in the vertical
plane (unless you have a suspension frame). Your seat tube does not
compress and extend. Your rear stays are part of a triangulated
structure. Frame materials do have more or less ability to transmit
vibration, however. That is the the argument as I understand it. --
Jay Beattie.

Aluminium frames with large oversize tubes were said to be very harsh,
and manufacturers then replaced the straight Al seat stays with bent CF
stays.

I once had a spill when a fellow rider hit the road in front of me after
hitting a piece of wood. In that accident my bicycle frame got damaged.
The seat tube was just slightly bent at the end of the seat post. I
noticed that it rode more smoothly and that the gap between the pump and
seat tube kept closing and opening.

I suspect that the seat tube and seat post on most bicycles flexes a
little with the riders weight going over bumps.

The material stiffness and tubing dimensions must play some part in the
felt vertical stiffness.

JS.

On 1/5/2011 3:50 PM, James wrote:
Jay Beattie wrote:
On Jan 5, 5:50 am, Duane Hébert wrote:
On 1/4/2011 6:15 PM, wrote:

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?- Hide quoted text -

Assuming the same geometry, equipment, tires, etc., then yes, that is
what he is saying. Frame materials are inelastic in the vertical
plane (unless you have a suspension frame). Your seat tube does not
compress and extend. Your rear stays are part of a triangulated
structure. Frame materials do have more or less ability to transmit
vibration, however. That is the the argument as I understand it. --
Jay Beattie.

Aluminium frames with large oversize tubes were said to be very harsh,
and manufacturers then replaced the straight Al seat stays with bent CF
stays.

I once had a spill when a fellow rider hit the road in front of me after
hitting a piece of wood. In that accident my bicycle frame got damaged.
The seat tube was just slightly bent at the end of the seat post. I
noticed that it rode more smoothly and that the gap between the pump and
seat tube kept closing and opening.

I suspect that the seat tube and seat post on most bicycles flexes a
little with the riders weight going over bumps.

The material stiffness and tubing dimensions must play some part in the
felt vertical stiffness.

The last aluminum bike that I spent any time on was around 1990
Cannondale - I don't remember the model but it had pretty large tubes.
I found it very uncomfortable to ride, even though the fit seemed pretty
decent. It was very jarring over the road. I traded it in for the
steel Bianchi and never had problems with the ride after that.
I can't say for sure whether it was the frame but it sure seemed to be.

Anyway, like I said, I have a new bike now and I like riding it. Still
take the Bianchi through the trails sometime though.

On Jan 5, 6:43*pm, Lou Holtman wrote:
Op 5-1-2011 14:50, Duane Hébert schreef:





On 1/4/2011 6:15 PM, wrote:
Jean who? 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?

A steel frame can be harsher than a aluminum frame. An aluminum frame
can be more comfortable than a CF frame. It is not in the material
itself it is how it is used and even then saddle, wheels, fit, fitness,
tires, handlebar make much much more difference. Choosing a frame
material for its so called comfort properties is stupid. If have a AL,
Ti and a CF roadbike and I really can't feel any difference. Al harsch
and steel plush is something the 'I am a lugged steel frame guy' want
you to believe.

Lou

Exactly. I'm a lugged steel guy only for aesthetic purposes, because
I'm an artist. My arse is a *wide forks* arse, because it is a comfort
arse, and very clever besides: it realizes that how a bike rides has
only a little -- shading to nothing -- to do with the material the
frame is made of and a very great deal with the tyres you can fit, the
width of and pressure inside the tyres.

A "touring bike" that will take only the skinniest tyres is not a
touring bike but a fashion accessory for a poser.

***

Even though it has already been stressed, I can't help adding, even if
I'm not a roadie, that simple correct fit to the bike is actually the
primary success factor in the OP's quest for "daylong comfort" on the
bike. Even for my rides, these days never longer than three hours,
indeed even on one-hour rides, increasingly better fit on my bikes
have turned cycling from a living hell to something I miss fiercely
when the weather keeps me inside.

The OP needs to find the right dealer as a priority a long way higher
up the list than discussing the material of her next bike.

Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Bicycles at
http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/...20CYCLING.html

On Jan 5, 6:49*pm, landotter wrote:

I'm of the school that Taiwan and China have got it down when it comes
to mass produced frames, they're commodities, not worth sweating
about. I'll have my buddy A. build me a bike next year probably--but
more as a way to support a cool guy, and to have a piece of art.

Nothing wrong with supporting a craftsman who'll give you something a
little more than a commodity. It would be a dull world if we all
bought only lowest common denominator commodity item.

Andre Jute
Visit Andre's books at
http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/THE%20WRITER'S%20HOUSE.html

On 1/5/2011 11:44 AM, Duane Hébert wrote:

I think that my steel frame is a "softer" ride than the last aluminum
frame that I had and I think that the CF frame absorbs a lot of the
road noise that the aluminum one didn't although less than the steel
one does. Am I just imagining that?

Almost certainly, at least the cause.


Maybe, I mean the CF frame is a tight road bike with a short wheel base
and the steel one is a sport tour style with a longer wheelbase. But the
frame has to be capable of dampening road vibration doesn't it?

Any bicycle that "damped" significant road vibration would also
dissipate significant energy and require more power to operate at a
given speed, hardly what you want in a bicycle.

Given the diamond frame shape it's difficult to imagine a way to get any
significant vertical deflection, never mind damping. Torsional
deflection is much easier, I don't think it's likely for a frame to be
ever too stiff torsionally.

Before aluminum frames were cheaply manufactured they had cachet just
because they were exotic (much the same for aluminum the metal before it
was cheaply smelted and refined, over a century before). Aluminum's real
crime is that cheap bikes can be made from it, which utterly killed its
snob appeal. Rationalizations have been promoted, but they're
unfortunately irrational. Aluminum is the material best suited to mass
production of frames, and poorly suited to small volume runs. It's not a
good match to the boutique bike market, but that takes nothing away from
its suitability as a frame material.

On 1/6/2011 10:34 AM, Peter Cole wrote:
On 1/5/2011 11:44 AM, Duane Hébert wrote:

I think that my steel frame is a "softer" ride than the last aluminum
frame that I had and I think that the CF frame absorbs a lot of the
road noise that the aluminum one didn't although less than the steel
one does. Am I just imagining that?

Almost certainly, at least the cause.


Maybe, I mean the CF frame is a tight road bike with a short wheel base
and the steel one is a sport tour style with a longer wheelbase. But the
frame has to be capable of dampening road vibration doesn't it?

Any bicycle that "damped" significant road vibration would also
dissipate significant energy and require more power to operate at a
given speed, hardly what you want in a bicycle.

Given the diamond frame shape it's difficult to imagine a way to get any
significant vertical deflection, never mind damping. Torsional
deflection is much easier, I don't think it's likely for a frame to be
ever too stiff torsionally.

Before aluminum frames were cheaply manufactured they had cachet just
because they were exotic (much the same for aluminum the metal before it
was cheaply smelted and refined, over a century before). Aluminum's real
crime is that cheap bikes can be made from it, which utterly killed its
snob appeal. Rationalizations have been promoted, but they're
unfortunately irrational. Aluminum is the material best suited to mass
production of frames, and poorly suited to small volume runs. It's not a
good match to the boutique bike market, but that takes nothing away from
its suitability as a frame material.


Dunno. I know what you're saying and I've read what Sheldon has to say
on this subject. Maybe it's the zertz inserts on the seat tube or the
comfy tape then but there is definitely less road vibration and buzz.

On 1/6/2011 11:01 AM, Duane Hébert wrote:
On 1/6/2011 10:34 AM, Peter Cole wrote:
On 1/5/2011 11:44 AM, Duane Hébert wrote:

I think that my steel frame is a "softer" ride than the last aluminum
frame that I had and I think that the CF frame absorbs a lot of the
road noise that the aluminum one didn't although less than the steel
one does. Am I just imagining that?

Almost certainly, at least the cause.


Maybe, I mean the CF frame is a tight road bike with a short wheel base
and the steel one is a sport tour style with a longer wheelbase. But the
frame has to be capable of dampening road vibration doesn't it?

Any bicycle that "damped" significant road vibration would also
dissipate significant energy and require more power to operate at a
given speed, hardly what you want in a bicycle.

Given the diamond frame shape it's difficult to imagine a way to get any
significant vertical deflection, never mind damping. Torsional
deflection is much easier, I don't think it's likely for a frame to be
ever too stiff torsionally.

Before aluminum frames were cheaply manufactured they had cachet just
because they were exotic (much the same for aluminum the metal before it
was cheaply smelted and refined, over a century before). Aluminum's real
crime is that cheap bikes can be made from it, which utterly killed its
snob appeal. Rationalizations have been promoted, but they're
unfortunately irrational. Aluminum is the material best suited to mass
production of frames, and poorly suited to small volume runs. It's not a
good match to the boutique bike market, but that takes nothing away from
its suitability as a frame material.


Dunno. I know what you're saying and I've read what Sheldon has to say
on this subject. Maybe it's the zertz inserts on the seat tube or the
comfy tape then but there is definitely less road vibration and buzz.


I'm afraid you can only gush about butt comfort, not hands, unless you
also had a fat tubed aluminum fork. The problem with the butt theory is
that that nasty road buzz has to make it through the tires, saddle and
seatpost, all of which are much more compliant than the frame's rear
triangle. Maybe I just don't have a sensitive butt, I've been accused of
worse.

I do notice torsional stiffness quite easily. Other than perhaps an
involvement in high speed shimmy, I'd say that's a matter of taste, and
tends to be a much more obvious phenomenon in the very large frames I am
obliged to use. I like frames torsionally stiff, they just feel more
stable at high speed. That's subjective, as is the feeling of being more
efficient on climbs -- neither of which I'd be prepared to defend (or
spend a lot of money on).

Maybe frame materials make a bigger difference in smaller frames, I
don't know, all my bikes seem to have the same "plushness".

Peter Cole wrote:
On 1/5/2011 11:44 AM, Duane Hébert wrote:

I think that my steel frame is a "softer" ride than the last aluminum
frame that I had and I think that the CF frame absorbs a lot of the
road noise that the aluminum one didn't although less than the steel
one does. Am I just imagining that?

Almost certainly, at least the cause.

Read all about it on the internet - not about bikes..

http://www.acpt.com/article2.html

for example.

CF damps vibration more than steel or al.

Any bicycle that "damped" significant road vibration would also
dissipate significant energy and require more power to operate at a
given speed, hardly what you want in a bicycle.

Yes - and no. Instead of dissipating high frequency vibration in the
frame, moving that energy into your body _may_ be detrimental.

Given the diamond frame shape it's difficult to imagine a way to get any
significant vertical deflection, never mind damping.

Yet it exists.

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/rinard/fea.htm


Torsional
deflection is much easier, I don't think it's likely for a frame to be
ever too stiff torsionally.

Agreed.

Before aluminum frames were cheaply manufactured they had cachet just
because they were exotic (much the same for aluminum the metal before it
was cheaply smelted and refined, over a century before). Aluminum's real
crime is that cheap bikes can be made from it, which utterly killed its
snob appeal. Rationalizations have been promoted, but they're
unfortunately irrational. Aluminum is the material best suited to mass
production of frames, and poorly suited to small volume runs. It's not a
good match to the boutique bike market, but that takes nothing away from
its suitability as a frame material.

Only the lower cyclic fatigue life, and knock and bump resistance
compared with steel and Ti in regular bicycle frame tube dimensions.

JS.

On 1/6/2011 9:34 AM, Peter Cole wrote:
[...]
Before aluminum frames were cheaply manufactured they had cachet just
because they were exotic (much the same for aluminum the metal before it
was cheaply smelted and refined, over a century before). Aluminum's real
crime is that cheap bikes can be made from it, which utterly killed its
snob appeal. Rationalizations have been promoted, but they're
unfortunately irrational. Aluminum is the material best suited to mass
production of frames, and poorly suited to small volume runs. It's not a
good match to the boutique bike market, but that takes nothing away from
its suitability as a frame material.

Aluminium is a terrible material for a bicycle frame.

However, very good bicycles can be made with aluminium alloy frames.

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

On 1/6/2011 4:26 PM, Peter Cole wrote:
On 1/6/2011 11:01 AM, Duane Hébert wrote:
On 1/6/2011 10:34 AM, Peter Cole wrote:
On 1/5/2011 11:44 AM, Duane Hébert wrote:

I think that my steel frame is a "softer" ride than the last aluminum
frame that I had and I think that the CF frame absorbs a lot of the
road noise that the aluminum one didn't although less than the steel
one does. Am I just imagining that?

Almost certainly, at least the cause.


Maybe, I mean the CF frame is a tight road bike with a short wheel base
and the steel one is a sport tour style with a longer wheelbase. But
the
frame has to be capable of dampening road vibration doesn't it?

Any bicycle that "damped" significant road vibration would also
dissipate significant energy and require more power to operate at a
given speed, hardly what you want in a bicycle.

Given the diamond frame shape it's difficult to imagine a way to get any
significant vertical deflection, never mind damping. Torsional
deflection is much easier, I don't think it's likely for a frame to be
ever too stiff torsionally.

Before aluminum frames were cheaply manufactured they had cachet just
because they were exotic (much the same for aluminum the metal before it
was cheaply smelted and refined, over a century before). Aluminum's real
crime is that cheap bikes can be made from it, which utterly killed its
snob appeal. Rationalizations have been promoted, but they're
unfortunately irrational. Aluminum is the material best suited to mass
production of frames, and poorly suited to small volume runs. It's not a
good match to the boutique bike market, but that takes nothing away from
its suitability as a frame material.


Dunno. I know what you're saying and I've read what Sheldon has to say
on this subject. Maybe it's the zertz inserts on the seat tube or the
comfy tape then but there is definitely less road vibration and buzz.


I'm afraid you can only gush about butt comfort, not hands, unless you
also had a fat tubed aluminum fork. The problem with the butt theory is
that that nasty road buzz has to make it through the tires, saddle and
seatpost, all of which are much more compliant than the frame's rear
triangle. Maybe I just don't have a sensitive butt, I've been accused of
worse.

Sorry, didn't realize that I was gushing. I generally don't tend to do
that.

I'm talking about the buzz that I feel in the bars. It's sort of like
novacaine. I can feel the buzz and road roughness but it's duller (if
that's a word) than on my other bike.