|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
The difference tube diameter makes
On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 11:30:31 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote: On 8/13/2014 7:04 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote: Am 13.08.2014 12:54, schrieb John B. Slocomb: One wonders why skinny tube racing bikes were used for so long a period. It is certainly not because engineers didn't know that a thin large diameter tube is stiffer then a thin small diameter tube. I think there's always been a tremendous amount of bike "engineering" that was really tradition. And come to think of it, that's true of other fields as well. Look at the 100 year history of auto design, for example. the most important aspect has always been minimal weight. For a given minimal thickness of tubing, a small diameter tube is lighter than a large diameter tube. Large diameter tubes only started coming up when technology reached the stage that the minimum thickness of tube that could be produced and welded became significantly thinner than the minimum thickness necessary for structural stability (I believe this was reached for aluminium frames in the 1980s and for steel frames a lot later). IIRC, the first I heard of a significant design choice based on oversized tubes was in an article about Gary Klein. Supposedly, he was an MIT engineering student who was excited to visit an exhibit of a super-light bicycle; but was very disappointed to see that it had no engineering innovation. They'd simply drilled and whittled conventional parts down to stupid-light thicknesses. He then started thinking about using aluminum frames, and it occurred to him that aluminum's lower density would allow thicker (non-denting) tube walls at larger diameters. So we got light & rigid Klein frames. Cannondale and others copied the concept. Tandem tubing has long been oversized. Our 1979 tandem is oversized Reynolds 531. But the wall thickness is no less than standard, probably to allow brazing by any guy with a torch. So back in those days, the extra stiffness from oversized steel tubes came with a weight penalty. Since then, there have been improvements in steel alloys and welding techniques, so oversized steel works better than it once did. Err, Frank! Aluminum bike frames predated Gary Klien by about a hundred years. The first commercially made aluminum frame was marketed in the 1890's I believe. -- Cheers, John B. |
Ads |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
The difference tube diameter makes
On 8/13/2014 6:46 PM, James wrote:
An interesting analogy with the springy pole and walking. I can imagine that higher peak loads are more fatiguing. On a bike however, I don't think we have to behave the same, regardless of the frame stiffness. When your weight lands harshly on the pedals at the bottom of the pedal stroke while standing and pedalling up a very steep climb, couldn't you start to press down with the other leg a little earlier to start to unload the leg that's near the bottom of the cycle? Honestly, I have tried to smooth out that motion. Sometimes I can. But it most often comes up when I'm fighting to stay alive and in motion on the steepest hills, and when I'm most tired. And the older I get, the more it comes up! :-/ Perhaps it's another reason to pedal in circles rather than just stomping down on the pedals - all the way to the bottom where downward force does nothing to propel you forward. Yeah, that makes sense to me. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
The difference tube diameter makes
On 8/13/2014 7:14 PM, James wrote:
I think oversized steel tubes will not break so easily as 1" tubes, because the stresses should be lower. Frank might correct me if I'm wrong. Probably depends on the particular stresses causing the potential break. For bending and for torsion, and for a given load and tube weight, the elementary equations claim lower and lower stress if that material is made into bigger and bigger diameter tubes. There's no theoretical limit to that simplistic benefit. But obviously, you've got practical limits imposed by the ever-thinner tube walls. So at a certain point, the tube is vulnerable to denting, to buckling, to fatigue at stress concentrations at ends (or wherever loads are applied), etc. That stuff is hard to quantify. So I think most manufacturers have gradually and slowly experimented, to see what they could get away with. This is probably one of the reasons that bike design has tended to be conservative. In a sense, anyone on light enough equipment is a beta tester. Thank goodness for guys like Jay, doing their part to produce data and advance the state of the art! - Frank Krygowski |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
The difference tube diameter makes
On 8/13/2014 8:42 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
Err, Frank! Aluminum bike frames predated Gary Klien by about a hundred years. The first commercially made aluminum frame was marketed in the 1890's I believe. I know that. I was talking about the idea of greatly increasing the aluminum tube diameter to increase stiffness, yet keep weight low. As I've mentioned before, I've ridden a friend's Alan frame, early 1980's vintage, IIRC. It was (and is) very flexible. I was able to scrape both sides of the chain on the front derailleur cage during a sprint. That's just not possible with a Cannondale. At least, not for me. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
The difference tube diameter makes
On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 22:02:01 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote: On 8/13/2014 8:42 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote: Err, Frank! Aluminum bike frames predated Gary Klien by about a hundred years. The first commercially made aluminum frame was marketed in the 1890's I believe. I know that. I was talking about the idea of greatly increasing the aluminum tube diameter to increase stiffness, yet keep weight low. I've always wondered about whether it was the chicken or the egg? If you make a tube out of aluminum and duplicate the wall thickness and O.D. of a steel tube you have a pretty flimsy tube. Of course you can over overcome that by making the aluminum tube thicker... and heavier. But if you have to use more material why not just make the tube larger in diameter which will make the tube stiffer... As I've mentioned before, I've ridden a friend's Alan frame, early 1980's vintage, IIRC. It was (and is) very flexible. I was able to scrape both sides of the chain on the front derailleur cage during a sprint. That's just not possible with a Cannondale. At least, not for me. The latest carbon frames I've seen had the lower end of the seat tube about the same width as the bottom bracket. I assume a super stiff frame. Somewhere I read some power figures and it seems to me that the Japanese Keirin riders are capable of very high power output but I believe that the keirin bikes are - or at least they were - still the old steel tube frames. And given that the crucial part of the Keirin race is that last sprint lap after the pacer pulls off the track It sort of makes you wonder. -- Cheers, John B. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
What a difference a day makes | Robert Chung | Racing | 7 | June 29th 07 01:00 PM |
what a difference it makes | zachjowi | Unicycling | 12 | August 2nd 06 09:27 AM |
The difference a day makes... | Human powered | Racing | 4 | July 21st 05 07:03 AM |
What a difference a Race makes | matabala | Racing | 0 | June 13th 05 06:43 PM |
What a difference a day makes... | Mark Tranchant | UK | 7 | January 13th 05 12:03 AM |