A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

WTB Suntour CYCLONE BB Spindle



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old August 29th 19, 10:43 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,870
Default WTB Suntour CYCLONE BB Spindle

On Thursday, August 29, 2019 at 1:58:22 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/29/2019 4:44 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, August 29, 2019 at 12:44:33 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/28/2019 11:51 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 9:13:57 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Explain. If you take a bottom bracket axle made of steel with yield strength
100,000 psi and replace it with an identical part made of steel with yield
strength 120,000 psi, will it transfer more power from the same rider?

Perhaps you'd like to explain to us why that would matter? How many people can cause distortion of the bottom bracket axle in either case?

Sheesh! Tom, that is precisely the point!

It was YOU who claimed "But these higher grade materials allowed for
large improvements in power transfer." That's what I was responding to..
Now you seem to be arguing with yourself!

Care to explain why you said that in the first place? What on earth were
you thinking?

--
- Frank Krygowski


I always wondered how they measured the effect of BB (shell or axle) flex and power output. Power is transmitted from the pedal to the arm to the spider to the ring to the chain -- as the mechanism is rotating on the BB axle. You would have to have one of those complicated equations with fancy symbols to calculate the contribution of flex in the BB axle or shell!

I know it is a big marketing point, but I don't recall going any faster when I went from a PW square drive to an Octalink on the same bike.


Not to resurrect an argument, but just to remind people:

A few years ago here, someone linked to a magazine article where they
had young modern racers do a comparison test of a 1980s or 1990s racing
bike vs. an up to date, modern rigid-yet-compliant, many-more-speeds,
STI equipped, more aero carbon frame racing bike. The test consisted of
repeated runs over a long steady climb.

The young test pilots were indeed faster on the new bikes, and said
everything about the new bike was much better except perhaps the saddle.
They said they were afraid to take their hands off the hoods to shift
the old bike. And yes, they said the rigidity was much better for power
transfer. It "proved" that all of the new technology was the bees knees.

Except the improvement in climbing speeds was precisely what would have
been predicted by just the difference in bike weight. All the other
factors had no demonstrable effect on speed.


And I'm just talking about axle or shell flex and not gross frame flex. You can get old touring bikes that are like riding a hammock. You get out of the saddle and give it a big effort, and the bike goes everywhere except forward. If you take some 130lb mountain goat and put him on an old steel racing frame, the penalty is primarily weight and not stiffness. You could get some pretty stiff steel frames in small sizes and even in larger sizes with a big weight penalty.

-- Jay Beattie.
Ads
  #52  
Old August 29th 19, 10:45 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tom Kunich[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,231
Default WTB Suntour CYCLONE BB Spindle

On Thursday, August 29, 2019 at 1:58:22 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/29/2019 4:44 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, August 29, 2019 at 12:44:33 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/28/2019 11:51 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 9:13:57 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Explain. If you take a bottom bracket axle made of steel with yield strength
100,000 psi and replace it with an identical part made of steel with yield
strength 120,000 psi, will it transfer more power from the same rider?

Perhaps you'd like to explain to us why that would matter? How many people can cause distortion of the bottom bracket axle in either case?

Sheesh! Tom, that is precisely the point!

It was YOU who claimed "But these higher grade materials allowed for
large improvements in power transfer." That's what I was responding to..
Now you seem to be arguing with yourself!

Care to explain why you said that in the first place? What on earth were
you thinking?

--
- Frank Krygowski


I always wondered how they measured the effect of BB (shell or axle) flex and power output. Power is transmitted from the pedal to the arm to the spider to the ring to the chain -- as the mechanism is rotating on the BB axle. You would have to have one of those complicated equations with fancy symbols to calculate the contribution of flex in the BB axle or shell!

I know it is a big marketing point, but I don't recall going any faster when I went from a PW square drive to an Octalink on the same bike.


Not to resurrect an argument, but just to remind people:

A few years ago here, someone linked to a magazine article where they
had young modern racers do a comparison test of a 1980s or 1990s racing
bike vs. an up to date, modern rigid-yet-compliant, many-more-speeds,
STI equipped, more aero carbon frame racing bike. The test consisted of
repeated runs over a long steady climb.

The young test pilots were indeed faster on the new bikes, and said
everything about the new bike was much better except perhaps the saddle.
They said they were afraid to take their hands off the hoods to shift
the old bike. And yes, they said the rigidity was much better for power
transfer. It "proved" that all of the new technology was the bees knees.

Except the improvement in climbing speeds was precisely what would have
been predicted by just the difference in bike weight. All the other
factors had no demonstrable effect on speed.

--
- Frank Krygowski


NOT ON A STRAIGHT OR ALMOST SO CLIMB. But that flex makes a huge difference in high speed cornering. Near the end of the mass manufactured steel racing bikes they were easily as predictable as carbon fiber. Maybe even more so.. There is a local turn off of the main drag onto a bike trail where you make an almost 145 degree turn and then have to miss a steel pole in the middle of the trail. On all of my bikes making that turn and missing that pole is a heart-in-throat operation. But the Reynolds 853 LeMond is 100% predictable. My oversize Columbus EL Eddy Merckx, the Pinarello with custom tubing and my last production version Basso with Basso Tubing Concepts tubing AND THE COLNAGO were all "I hope I miss it".

So the 1970's and 80's bikes may only have been slower to the calculated weight difference but they didn't handle ANYTHING like the new CF bikes or the last generation of steel bikes.
  #53  
Old August 30th 19, 12:22 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default WTB Suntour CYCLONE BB Spindle

On 8/29/2019 5:34 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:

Just five years ago I could tell the difference in flex between an ISO BB and an Octalink. Today I can't. Five years ago when sprinted for a light I could hit almost 40 mph. Today I have trouble getting over 20.

So it doesn't matter what I'm using now but it did only 5 years ago. There is a local hill that I climb coming back from an area where there are many courses. 5 years ago I could go over its 3% grade at 25 mph. Today, it's 8 mph.


I make those same observations all the time. Briefly, it's "The older I
get, the faster I was." ;-)


--
- Frank Krygowski
  #54  
Old August 30th 19, 12:28 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default WTB Suntour CYCLONE BB Spindle

On 8/29/2019 5:43 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, August 29, 2019 at 1:58:22 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Not to resurrect an argument, but just to remind people:

A few years ago here, someone linked to a magazine article where they
had young modern racers do a comparison test of a 1980s or 1990s racing
bike vs. an up to date, modern rigid-yet-compliant, many-more-speeds,
STI equipped, more aero carbon frame racing bike. The test consisted of
repeated runs over a long steady climb.

The young test pilots were indeed faster on the new bikes, and said
everything about the new bike was much better except perhaps the saddle.
They said they were afraid to take their hands off the hoods to shift
the old bike. And yes, they said the rigidity was much better for power
transfer. It "proved" that all of the new technology was the bees knees.

Except the improvement in climbing speeds was precisely what would have
been predicted by just the difference in bike weight. All the other
factors had no demonstrable effect on speed.


And I'm just talking about axle or shell flex and not gross frame flex. You can get old touring bikes that are like riding a hammock. You get out of the saddle and give it a big effort, and the bike goes everywhere except forward. If you take some 130lb mountain goat and put him on an old steel racing frame, the penalty is primarily weight and not stiffness.


So are you saying that if that test used 170 pound riders instead, there
would have been more speed increase than just the percentage change in
weight?

It's not impossible, I suppose, but I don't know that's been
demonstrated by any measurements. Some people - led by Jan Heine - claim
that too much stiffness is a detriment.

Thinking in terms of energy (or work) balance, it seems that if
significant power were being lost to flex of either the BB or the frame,
those components should be getting warm. That's because energy lost is
converted to heat. I don't recall seeing any evidence of hot bottom
brackets - except, perhaps, when they had little electric motors hidden
in them.

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #55  
Old August 30th 19, 12:31 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default WTB Suntour CYCLONE BB Spindle

On 8/29/2019 5:45 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Thursday, August 29, 2019 at 1:58:22 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/29/2019 4:44 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, August 29, 2019 at 12:44:33 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/28/2019 11:51 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 9:13:57 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Explain. If you take a bottom bracket axle made of steel with yield strength
100,000 psi and replace it with an identical part made of steel with yield
strength 120,000 psi, will it transfer more power from the same rider?

Perhaps you'd like to explain to us why that would matter? How many people can cause distortion of the bottom bracket axle in either case?

Sheesh! Tom, that is precisely the point!

It was YOU who claimed "But these higher grade materials allowed for
large improvements in power transfer." That's what I was responding to.
Now you seem to be arguing with yourself!

Care to explain why you said that in the first place? What on earth were
you thinking?

--
- Frank Krygowski

I always wondered how they measured the effect of BB (shell or axle) flex and power output. Power is transmitted from the pedal to the arm to the spider to the ring to the chain -- as the mechanism is rotating on the BB axle. You would have to have one of those complicated equations with fancy symbols to calculate the contribution of flex in the BB axle or shell!

I know it is a big marketing point, but I don't recall going any faster when I went from a PW square drive to an Octalink on the same bike.


Not to resurrect an argument, but just to remind people:

A few years ago here, someone linked to a magazine article where they
had young modern racers do a comparison test of a 1980s or 1990s racing
bike vs. an up to date, modern rigid-yet-compliant, many-more-speeds,
STI equipped, more aero carbon frame racing bike. The test consisted of
repeated runs over a long steady climb.

The young test pilots were indeed faster on the new bikes, and said
everything about the new bike was much better except perhaps the saddle.
They said they were afraid to take their hands off the hoods to shift
the old bike. And yes, they said the rigidity was much better for power
transfer. It "proved" that all of the new technology was the bees knees.

Except the improvement in climbing speeds was precisely what would have
been predicted by just the difference in bike weight. All the other
factors had no demonstrable effect on speed.

--
- Frank Krygowski


NOT ON A STRAIGHT OR ALMOST SO CLIMB. But that flex makes a huge difference in high speed cornering. Near the end of the mass manufactured steel racing bikes they were easily as predictable as carbon fiber. Maybe even more so. There is a local turn off of the main drag onto a bike trail where you make an almost 145 degree turn and then have to miss a steel pole in the middle of the trail. On all of my bikes making that turn and missing that pole is a heart-in-throat operation. But the Reynolds 853 LeMond is 100% predictable. My oversize Columbus EL Eddy Merckx, the Pinarello with custom tubing and my last production version Basso with Basso Tubing Concepts tubing AND THE COLNAGO were all "I hope I miss it".


I'd advise against riding that way.

There's a little narrow slot in a small speed bump I encounter
immediately after one turn in a cut-through parking lot. I'm willing to
take the turn fast enough to risk missing the slot, because the bump
itself isn't that bad. But I wouldn't risk it for a bollard. Those
things can kill.

So the 1970's and 80's bikes may only have been slower to the calculated weight difference but they didn't handle ANYTHING like the new CF bikes or the last generation of steel bikes.


Of course, we were attempting to talk about stiffness as related to
power transfer, not handling.

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #56  
Old August 30th 19, 01:03 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tom Kunich[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,231
Default WTB Suntour CYCLONE BB Spindle

On Thursday, August 29, 2019 at 4:22:24 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/29/2019 5:34 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:

Just five years ago I could tell the difference in flex between an ISO BB and an Octalink. Today I can't. Five years ago when sprinted for a light I could hit almost 40 mph. Today I have trouble getting over 20.

So it doesn't matter what I'm using now but it did only 5 years ago. There is a local hill that I climb coming back from an area where there are many courses. 5 years ago I could go over its 3% grade at 25 mph. Today, it's 8 mph.


I make those same observations all the time. Briefly, it's "The older I
get, the faster I was." ;-)


Well you can joke about it if you like but these speeds I mentioned were measured on the speedo many times. I'm still climbing a 3% grade in the big ring but I can see that that will be very soon a thing of the past.
  #57  
Old August 30th 19, 02:24 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Sir Ridesalot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,270
Default WTB Suntour CYCLONE BB Spindle

On Thursday, 29 August 2019 20:03:18 UTC-4, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Thursday, August 29, 2019 at 4:22:24 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/29/2019 5:34 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:

Just five years ago I could tell the difference in flex between an ISO BB and an Octalink. Today I can't. Five years ago when sprinted for a light I could hit almost 40 mph. Today I have trouble getting over 20.

So it doesn't matter what I'm using now but it did only 5 years ago. There is a local hill that I climb coming back from an area where there are many courses. 5 years ago I could go over its 3% grade at 25 mph. Today, it's 8 mph.


I make those same observations all the time. Briefly, it's "The older I
get, the faster I was." ;-)


Well you can joke about it if you like but these speeds I mentioned were measured on the speedo many times. I'm still climbing a 3% grade in the big ring but I can see that that will be very soon a thing of the past.


A 3% grade is not much. It's also what a lot of rail-trails max out at due to the traction limitations of many of the old trains that ran on them.

Cheers
  #58  
Old August 30th 19, 02:41 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,870
Default WTB Suntour CYCLONE BB Spindle

On Thursday, August 29, 2019 at 4:28:21 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/29/2019 5:43 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, August 29, 2019 at 1:58:22 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Not to resurrect an argument, but just to remind people:

A few years ago here, someone linked to a magazine article where they
had young modern racers do a comparison test of a 1980s or 1990s racing
bike vs. an up to date, modern rigid-yet-compliant, many-more-speeds,
STI equipped, more aero carbon frame racing bike. The test consisted of
repeated runs over a long steady climb.

The young test pilots were indeed faster on the new bikes, and said
everything about the new bike was much better except perhaps the saddle.
They said they were afraid to take their hands off the hoods to shift
the old bike. And yes, they said the rigidity was much better for power
transfer. It "proved" that all of the new technology was the bees knees.

Except the improvement in climbing speeds was precisely what would have
been predicted by just the difference in bike weight. All the other
factors had no demonstrable effect on speed.


And I'm just talking about axle or shell flex and not gross frame flex. You can get old touring bikes that are like riding a hammock. You get out of the saddle and give it a big effort, and the bike goes everywhere except forward. If you take some 130lb mountain goat and put him on an old steel racing frame, the penalty is primarily weight and not stiffness.


So are you saying that if that test used 170 pound riders instead, there
would have been more speed increase than just the percentage change in
weight?

It's not impossible, I suppose, but I don't know that's been
demonstrated by any measurements. Some people - led by Jan Heine - claim
that too much stiffness is a detriment.

Thinking in terms of energy (or work) balance, it seems that if
significant power were being lost to flex of either the BB or the frame,
those components should be getting warm. That's because energy lost is
converted to heat. I don't recall seeing any evidence of hot bottom
brackets - except, perhaps, when they had little electric motors hidden
in them.


Jan Heine and Grant Petersen claim all sorts of things -- like the benefit of twin top tubes. Anyway, flexibility is apparent with hard efforts. I did a road race on a first generation Cannondale 2.8 that was spec'd with an aluminum fork -- and to keep the weight down, Cannondale really lightened the top tube at the head tube junction. The front end of that bike was like a pogo stick. The race finished with an uphill sprint, and I remember just flailing on that thing, out of the saddle trying to pogo over the crest. Soon thereafter, I bought my first CF fork -- a Kestrel with a steel steerer. That made a big difference. I've gotten similar flex in other places like BB and tail on old, long wheelbase touring bikes. You step on it, and the bike is all over the place. My current gravel bike is designed to have flex in the rear triangle. Yes, I understand it is a triangulated structure, but it really does have a soft rear triangle feel.

-- Jay Beattie.

  #59  
Old August 30th 19, 03:28 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Sir Ridesalot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,270
Default WTB Suntour CYCLONE BB Spindle

On Thursday, 29 August 2019 21:41:38 UTC-4, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, August 29, 2019 at 4:28:21 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/29/2019 5:43 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, August 29, 2019 at 1:58:22 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Not to resurrect an argument, but just to remind people:

A few years ago here, someone linked to a magazine article where they
had young modern racers do a comparison test of a 1980s or 1990s racing
bike vs. an up to date, modern rigid-yet-compliant, many-more-speeds,
STI equipped, more aero carbon frame racing bike. The test consisted of
repeated runs over a long steady climb.

The young test pilots were indeed faster on the new bikes, and said
everything about the new bike was much better except perhaps the saddle.
They said they were afraid to take their hands off the hoods to shift
the old bike. And yes, they said the rigidity was much better for power
transfer. It "proved" that all of the new technology was the bees knees.

Except the improvement in climbing speeds was precisely what would have
been predicted by just the difference in bike weight. All the other
factors had no demonstrable effect on speed.

And I'm just talking about axle or shell flex and not gross frame flex. You can get old touring bikes that are like riding a hammock. You get out of the saddle and give it a big effort, and the bike goes everywhere except forward. If you take some 130lb mountain goat and put him on an old steel racing frame, the penalty is primarily weight and not stiffness.


So are you saying that if that test used 170 pound riders instead, there
would have been more speed increase than just the percentage change in
weight?

It's not impossible, I suppose, but I don't know that's been
demonstrated by any measurements. Some people - led by Jan Heine - claim
that too much stiffness is a detriment.

Thinking in terms of energy (or work) balance, it seems that if
significant power were being lost to flex of either the BB or the frame,
those components should be getting warm. That's because energy lost is
converted to heat. I don't recall seeing any evidence of hot bottom
brackets - except, perhaps, when they had little electric motors hidden
in them.


Jan Heine and Grant Petersen claim all sorts of things -- like the benefit of twin top tubes. Anyway, flexibility is apparent with hard efforts. I did a road race on a first generation Cannondale 2.8 that was spec'd with an aluminum fork -- and to keep the weight down, Cannondale really lightened the top tube at the head tube junction. The front end of that bike was like a pogo stick. The race finished with an uphill sprint, and I remember just flailing on that thing, out of the saddle trying to pogo over the crest. Soon thereafter, I bought my first CF fork -- a Kestrel with a steel steerer. That made a big difference. I've gotten similar flex in other places like BB and tail on old, long wheelbase touring bikes. You step on it, and the bike is all over the place. My current gravel bike is designed to have flex in the rear triangle. Yes, I understand it is a triangulated structure, but it really does have a soft rear triangle feel.

-- Jay Beattie.


I remember reading reviews in Bicycling Magazine, aka, Buycycling, wherein they stated that frame flex wasn't as bad as people thought and that was because when the frame flexed it stored energy that be returned on some part of the pedal stroke but I don't recall whether it was on the downward thrust or not. Seems the marketers can put a positive spin onto just about anything no matter how negative the thing they want to put that positive spin on..

I always thought that one of the big reason manufacturers went to compact frames was to reduce frame flex. I've been told it's so they only have to build a few different size frames and use the seatpost and the stem to size the bikes to individuals.

Cheers
  #60  
Old August 30th 19, 04:03 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tom Kunich[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,231
Default WTB Suntour CYCLONE BB Spindle

I heard that from many riders that were in low gear climbing a 3% grade. The road up Mt. Hamilton is only 7& on the western side since that was the only road to the top when they built the telescope on the top and mules can't pull any weight beyond 7%. After listening to all these people tell me how easy a climb it was I was the first to the top just riding along. Out of the 20 or so riders I was with up Mt. Diablo I was one of two that could ride the final 24%.

Exactly what sort of climbing have you done? So far this year I'm far behind normal and have over 117,000 ft of climbing for the year.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Smallest chainring 4 Suntour Cyclone crank? Sir Ridesalot Techniques 1 July 2nd 19 08:43 PM
Suntour Cyclone Crank Update AMuzi Techniques 4 July 2nd 19 08:41 PM
FA: NOS SunTour Cyclone Front Brake -- For Fixed? Jack Marketplace 0 April 17th 06 03:02 PM
Suntour Cyclone Cage Swap A Muzi Techniques 2 January 13th 05 04:20 AM
Suntour Cyclone Cranks ??? David Hallerman Techniques 1 December 1st 03 09:29 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:41 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.