|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
Carbon Fibre Road Frames are Delicate? Tell that 2 this guy
On 09/25/2012 06:45 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 11:38:23 +1000, James wrote: On 25/09/12 10:49, John B. wrote: On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 14:33:23 -0400, wrote: On 09/24/2012 02:17 PM, Jay Beattie wrote: On Sep 24, 8:45 am, Frank wrote: Lou Holtman wrote: Op maandag 24 september 2012 05:09:56 UTC+2 schreef het volgende: People like that would be likely to want the latest Shimano group anyway, because you _gotta_ keep up with the latest technology, right? This is an example of one of your judgemental and narrow minded remarks people 'like' you for Frank. You could left that out of this post Frank your point would be the same, but you could not resist could you. Leaving it out wouldn't have made it less true. Do you really doubt that much of the market for high-end racing bikes is driven by a desire to keep up with new technology? Shimano, SRAM and Campy come out with new stuff every year. Bike magazines review the stuff and write glowing reports about tiny improvements. Manufacturers spec the new stuff in their most expensive products every year, and advertise the supposedly great benefits. Guys who race tend to buy as close to a top-end bike as they can afford, and upgrade their bikes frequently. From what I've seen, they upgrade much more frequently than any other class of cyclists, because they feel they have to keep up. Is any of that inaccurate? Not quite accurate based on my experience. I don't see the racers in my peer group going from non-Di2 2010 Dura Ace to 2012 Dura Ace for example. I haven't even seen switches to Di2 except as part of a new bike purchase. I see very few people upgrade brakes, stems or bars. Most people stick with their group until they get a new bike or until the old group is no longer sufficiently supported. However, I do see a lot of wheel upgrading. I ride with people in the industry who get pro deals and can upgrade at will, and oddly enough, my best riding buddy is still on the same Pinarello he had five years ago with the same Campy group. His wheels have changed a few times, though. You can get a lot more benefit by upgrading wheels than by upgrading brakes or bars. Even changing the group is not likely to make as much difference. Anyway, that has been the case for me. I was at the LBS talking to them about upgrading to a new bike and they let me try some new wheels instead. I ended up keeping my bike and buying the wheels. I hate to say it but you rather prove Franks' thesis. What "benefit" does someone who is not a racer enthusiast gain from these new wheels? Softer rides? More weight carrying capacity? Is it not possible to get a pair of wheels for a utility bike that are lighter, more aero and possibly stronger than brand whatever was sold with the bike? Of course it is possible. No one would deny it. What is at question is why would one add a set of aero, CF, wheels (an extreme example) to a utility bike? Unless of course one wanted to go faster. How is that what is at question here? Aero? And CF? Even though you say it's an extreme example, your technique is reminiscent of another poster here. The original question can't be argued against so you use an extreme interpretation of it and argue against that. http://www.theskepticsguide.org/reso...fallacies.aspx For someone like Dan who commutes 60 mi a day, he may well benefit from more aero for a start. Also more aero can be stronger due to the deeper rim section. Light, aero and strong comes at a price, but it's not impossible or without benefit. The advantage of aero wheels for someone like Dan O depends largely on what terrain he travels over on his way back and forth. If a hilly route where one is either toiling up the mountain or roaring down the other side probably would see little decrease in travel time. Obviously if you just hoot around the corner to the grocery store for a couple of items, or idle down the street at 10 mi/h, the benefit is less. Benefit must be evaluated by the end user, but it is not restricted to people who race. That is of course true however I do suggest that the majority of the people who spend big bucks for super wheels do it primarily because they want to go fast, i.e., the racer syndrome. Big bucks? Super wheels? Both are rather relative, are they not? Most people wouldn't spend more money on better wheels to go slower, if that's what you mean. Why do you state that in some derogatory light? I don't dis people that ride utility bikes in their work clothes. Everyone riding bikes is good. |
Ads |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Carbon Fibre Road Frames are Delicate? Tell that 2 this guy
On Sep 25, 5:37*am, wrote:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 19:37:35 -0700 (PDT), DirtRoadie wrote: On Sep 24, 7:04 pm, John B. wrote: On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 12:21:44 -0700 (PDT), DirtRoadie wrote: On Sep 24, 12:27 pm, Jay Beattie wrote: On Sep 24, 10:23 am, DirtRoadie wrote: On Sep 24, 10:33 am, AMuzi wrote: On 9/23/2012 10:09 PM, wrote: On Sunday, September 23, 2012 2:17:01 AM UTC-4, Lou Holtman wrote: On this side of the pond 95% of the new roadbikes is CF. The installed base is enormous and yet I don't see CF frames break more than Steel frames in the old days, in which these guys still living. Hell even crossbikes and ATB are more and more made from CF. Like I said before a 1800 gr CF frame is much stronger than a 1800 gr steel frame. Indeed CF is not a good idea for a commuter bike which get jammed in a bike rack every day of tossed in the back of a pick up truck. A CF frame might be a good idea for a racer looking for minimum bike weight, willing to treat the bike very carefully, and willing to dispose of the frame - or sell it it someone who was ignorant of its history - within a couple years. People like that would be likely to want the latest Shimano group anyway, because you _gotta_ keep up with the latest technology, right? OTOH, it's a much worse idea for a person who wants a bike that can withstand the normal bumps and bruises that afflict any bike used for practical transportation. - Frank Krygowski That may have been an argument 35 years ago regarding Graftek and similar efforts. Unfortunately that's where Frank is stuck! Most of his bicycle related knowledge comes from when he used to hang at the LBS run by Wilbur and Orville. DR Just out of curiosity, are there reported cases of normal bumps or bruises causing failures in well manufactured CF frames? I've looked for data discussing the failure rate of CF as compared to other materials and never found anything. -- Jay Beattie. My limited perspective is that the several "failures", i.e warranty replacements, that I am aware of were simply the appearance of obvious cracks on the surface. No structural failures even with continued riding. I also know a number of folks with CF mountain bikes and have never heard of a failure from normal use. For both road and mountain, that is disregarding any bike involved in a crash. But even then the only one I can think of (road) DID have structural failures and looked like a bike that had been involved in a crash. But the brunt of the damage there was to the fork. DR I thought I remembered a bloke posting here about a crack in CF handlebars and the lads rising in alarm and saying that it was imperative that the handlebars must be changed; immediately! -- Cheers, John B. You have got to be kidding. OK, you're not. But then you and Frank operate similarly. If it's a structural crack it's an issue. It often (most often) is not a structural crack. I should have made clear that I was trying to make a comparison between handlebars and frames. How so? In re-reading the entire post it appears that the thrust is that carbon fiber is just as suitable frame material as anything else. Indeed it is. Rough use included. "That may have been an argument 35 years ago regarding Graftek and similar efforts." for example. Cracks are a common using this technique: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pD7T7y6CsJA In contrast, handlebars are pretty much one integral unit I was unclear there. What is common (at least not unknown) from that method is hairline cracks appearing in the surface coating at the interface where two sections are joined. Almost any early Trek carbon frame displays this on the larger frame tubes. It is a cosmetic issue not structural. I have a carbon frame which has had such cracks for years. In contrast, if cracks should appear in a CF handlebar (a unitary piece) that would be a much more likely indicator of potential structural issues since there are no joints and they are not generally painted (ie a crack is not likely just a surface defect). But for a concise description of the variety of *methods and/or construction of carbon bicycle frames look here (I'll bet you thought they were all the same!) : http://www.calfeedesign.com/tech-pap...l-white-paper/ DR Actually not. I've been involved to some extent in fabricating composite objects since the 1960's so the fundamentals are certainly familiar to me. The significance of that paper that I was referencing was the variety of methods used to create a structure of connected tubes. As for your reference I might comment that you seem to be well on the way to underwriting Frank's thesis that CF may not be the optimum choice for a knock around bike, as the author writes: - "Such things as the cumulative effects of numerous abrasions (leaning the bike against a parking meter or wall) or the single catastrophic event such as jamming a chain between a frame tube and the rotating chain rings are a concern for carbon manufacturers." If those are issues they are not unique to CF. But let's at least take the entire quote regarding abrasion resistance. The part you conveniently left out reads "Fabricating the tubes with a margin of strength that will tolerate some minor abrasion despite the loss of a number of fibers should be easy. In order to prevent minor abrasion, the choices a use urethane enamel coatings, use a sacrificial outer layer, or use a Kevlar or boron outer layer in the tubes." And the "chainsaw" issue is addressed in the real world by adding an appropriate protector or reinforcement. Sounds very like Franks comments about bicycle racks and throwing the bike in the back of the truck doesn't it. Only when the relevant portion is excised as you did. As I pointed out, Frank was misleadingly referring to the material when he was really talking about ANY light bike and/or its design. Frank has confirmed that he is utterly clueless about CF but doesn't seem to let that get in the way of his non-technical "buycycling" rants. DR |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Carbon Fibre Road Frames are Delicate? Tell that 2 this guy
On Monday, September 24, 2012 5:37:10 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 09:17:53 -0700 (PDT), Dan O wrote: On Monday, September 24, 2012 8:45:33 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: Lou Holtman wrote: Op maandag 24 september 2012 05:09:56 UTC+2 schreef het volgende: People like that would be likely to want the latest Shimano group anyway, because you _gotta_ keep up with the latest technology, right? This is an example of one of your judgemental and narrow minded remarks people 'like' you for Frank. You could left that out of this post Frank your point would be the same, but you could not resist could you. Leaving it out wouldn't have made it less true. Do you really doubt that much of the market for high-end racing bikes is driven by a desire to keep up with new technology? Shimano, SRAM and Campy come out with new stuff every year. Bike magazines review the stuff and write glowing reports about tiny improvements. Manufacturers spec the new stuff in their most expensive products every year, and advertise the supposedly great benefits. Guys who race tend to buy as close to a top-end bike as they can afford, and upgrade their bikes frequently. From what I've seen, they upgrade much more frequently than any other class of cyclists, because they feel they have to keep up. Is any of that inaccurate? "Class of cyclist?" "From what I've seen"? How would you categorize those who specialize or engage specifically, in one phase, segment, sector, of an activity? I dont'know or care if it's accurate, but it sure comes across as disdainful. class ~ noun common 1. a collection of things sharing a common attribute Exactly my point. How can I know how he classifies "cyclists"? (I guess I would be in the ignorant and incompetent scofflaw drunk category.) How can I know "from what [he's] seen"? "Because they feel.. "? How can I assess the accuracy around all this? Look, he does this all the time - describes some "class of cyclist" with all their character flaws and other egregious failings, then lumps anyone who doesn't aspire to be in Frank's "class" into the contrived dunce class. Even though I go on and on about my exploits and adventures here, even *you* guys (by that mean everyone here) regularly misunderstand what it is to be me on a bike. I defy pigeonholing, so I would (hope) to give that same benefit of doubt to everyone, but he contrives a reality using his biased assumptions... and then asks us to verify the accuracy of his judgmental pronouncement. "there are two classes of detergents" Um... you lost me here. 2. a body of students who are taught together "early morning classes are always sleepy" 3. people having the same social, economic, or educational status "the working class; an emerging professional class" It seems to me very similar to the situation with computers, where competitive gamers are the early adopters who jump on every new processor or graphics card as soon as it comes out. Meanwhile, people whose computers are for strict utility purposes keep the same computer for five years or more. I doubt there are many gamers with unmodified five year old computers. I don't know what constitutes a "gamer", but I have very useful computers built more than five years before the last turn of the century (play games on some of them, too). Try http://computers.toptenreviews.com/gaming/ for additional information on what constitutes a "gaming computer" (or perhaps "gamer's computer") I didn't ask what constitutes a "gamer's computer"; I questioned what might constitutes a "gamer" (in Frank's mind). And I think, yet again, you just don't know me in that realm. |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Carbon Fibre Road Frames are Delicate? Tell that 2 this guy
On Monday, September 24, 2012 8:45:33 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Lou Holtman wrote: Op maandag 24 september 2012 05:09:56 UTC+2 schreef het volgende: People like that would be likely to want the latest Shimano group anyway, because you _gotta_ keep up with the latest technology, right? This is an example of one of your judgemental and narrow minded remarks people 'like' you for Frank. You could left that out of this post Frank your point would be the same, but you could not resist could you. Leaving it out wouldn't have made it less true. Do you really doubt that much of the market for high-end racing bikes is driven by a desire to keep up with new technology? Shimano, SRAM and Campy come out with new stuff every year. Bike magazines review the stuff and write glowing reports about tiny improvements. Manufacturers spec the new stuff in their most expensive products every year, and advertise the supposedly great benefits. Guys who race tend to buy as close to a top-end bike as they can afford, and upgrade their bikes frequently. From what I've seen, they upgrade much more frequently than any other class of cyclists, because they feel they have to keep up. Is any of that inaccurate? It seems to me very similar to the situation with computers, where competitive gamers are the early adopters who jump on every new processor or graphics card as soon as it comes out. Meanwhile, people whose computers are for strict utility purposes keep the same computer for five years or more. I doubt there are many gamers with unmodified five year old computers. You and I and anyone else have lots of options for very nice bikes of mature, classic, vintage - whatever - design. So why not let the early adopters keep the bike makers R&D in business, test the new stuff in the real world, and supply the second-hand market? |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Carbon Fibre Road Frames are Delicate? Tell that 2 this guy
Dan O wrote:
On Monday, September 24, 2012 5:37:10 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote: On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 09:17:53 -0700 (PDT), Dan O I dont'know or care if it's accurate, but it sure comes across as disdainful. class ~ noun common 1. a collection of things sharing a common attribute Exactly my point. How can I know how he classifies "cyclists"? You _could_ politely ask. Try http://computers.toptenreviews.com/gaming/ for additional information on what constitutes a "gaming computer" (or perhaps "gamer's computer") I didn't ask what constitutes a "gamer's computer"; I questioned what might constitutes a "gamer" (in Frank's mind). If you really want to know, ask politely. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Carbon Fibre Road Frames are Delicate? Tell that 2 this guy
Dan O wrote:
On Monday, September 24, 2012 8:45:33 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: Lou Holtman wrote: Op maandag 24 september 2012 05:09:56 UTC+2 schreef het volgende: People like that would be likely to want the latest Shimano group anyway, because you _gotta_ keep up with the latest technology, right? This is an example of one of your judgemental and narrow minded remarks people 'like' you for Frank. You could left that out of this post Frank your point would be the same, but you could not resist could you. Leaving it out wouldn't have made it less true. Do you really doubt that much of the market for high-end racing bikes is driven by a desire to keep up with new technology? Shimano, SRAM and Campy come out with new stuff every year. Bike magazines review the stuff and write glowing reports about tiny improvements. Manufacturers spec the new stuff in their most expensive products every year, and advertise the supposedly great benefits. Guys who race tend to buy as close to a top-end bike as they can afford, and upgrade their bikes frequently. From what I've seen, they upgrade much more frequently than any other class of cyclists, because they feel they have to keep up. Is any of that inaccurate? It seems to me very similar to the situation with computers, where competitive gamers are the early adopters who jump on every new processor or graphics card as soon as it comes out. Meanwhile, people whose computers are for strict utility purposes keep the same computer for five years or more. I doubt there are many gamers with unmodified five year old computers. You and I and anyone else have lots of options for very nice bikes of mature, classic, vintage - whatever - design. So why not let the early adopters keep the bike makers R&D in business, test the new stuff in the real world, and supply the second-hand market? Actually, Dan, I do let early adopters buy whatever they like, no matter what you may think. I've never tried to forbid the sale or purchase of any equipment. When I'm posting to a group where such things are discussed, I will post my assessment of the advantages and disadvantages. I believe that's what discussion groups are for. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Carbon Fibre Road Frames are Delicate? Tell that 2 this guy
On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 1:57:44 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Dan O wrote: On Monday, September 24, 2012 5:37:10 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote: On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 09:17:53 -0700 (PDT), Dan O I dont'know or care if it's accurate, but it sure comes across as disdainful. class ~ noun common 1. a collection of things sharing a common attribute Exactly my point. How can I know how he classifies "cyclists"? You _could_ politely ask. Try http://computers.toptenreviews.com/gaming/ for additional information on what constitutes a "gaming computer" (or perhaps "gamer's computer") I didn't ask what constitutes a "gamer's computer"; I questioned what might constitutes a "gamer" (in Frank's mind). If you really want to know, ask politely. Didn't want to know. (Have an idea what it might be anyway - like classes of cyclists - and I'll bet it's disdainful). |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Carbon Fibre Road Frames are Delicate? Tell that 2 this guy
On 25/09/2012 8:45 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 11:38:23 +1000, wrote: On 25/09/12 10:49, John B. wrote: On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 14:33:23 -0400, wrote: On 09/24/2012 02:17 PM, Jay Beattie wrote: On Sep 24, 8:45 am, Frank wrote: Lou Holtman wrote: Op maandag 24 september 2012 05:09:56 UTC+2 schreef het volgende: People like that would be likely to want the latest Shimano group anyway, because you _gotta_ keep up with the latest technology, right? This is an example of one of your judgemental and narrow minded remarks people 'like' you for Frank. You could left that out of this post Frank your point would be the same, but you could not resist could you. Leaving it out wouldn't have made it less true. Do you really doubt that much of the market for high-end racing bikes is driven by a desire to keep up with new technology? Shimano, SRAM and Campy come out with new stuff every year. Bike magazines review the stuff and write glowing reports about tiny improvements. Manufacturers spec the new stuff in their most expensive products every year, and advertise the supposedly great benefits. Guys who race tend to buy as close to a top-end bike as they can afford, and upgrade their bikes frequently. From what I've seen, they upgrade much more frequently than any other class of cyclists, because they feel they have to keep up. Is any of that inaccurate? Not quite accurate based on my experience. I don't see the racers in my peer group going from non-Di2 2010 Dura Ace to 2012 Dura Ace for example. I haven't even seen switches to Di2 except as part of a new bike purchase. I see very few people upgrade brakes, stems or bars. Most people stick with their group until they get a new bike or until the old group is no longer sufficiently supported. However, I do see a lot of wheel upgrading. I ride with people in the industry who get pro deals and can upgrade at will, and oddly enough, my best riding buddy is still on the same Pinarello he had five years ago with the same Campy group. His wheels have changed a few times, though. You can get a lot more benefit by upgrading wheels than by upgrading brakes or bars. Even changing the group is not likely to make as much difference. Anyway, that has been the case for me. I was at the LBS talking to them about upgrading to a new bike and they let me try some new wheels instead. I ended up keeping my bike and buying the wheels. I hate to say it but you rather prove Franks' thesis. What "benefit" does someone who is not a racer enthusiast gain from these new wheels? Softer rides? More weight carrying capacity? Is it not possible to get a pair of wheels for a utility bike that are lighter, more aero and possibly stronger than brand whatever was sold with the bike? Of course it is possible. No one would deny it. What is at question is why would one add a set of aero, CF, wheels (an extreme example) to a utility bike? Unless of course one wanted to go faster. Going faster is a valid reason, isn't it? Is a commuter bike a utility bike? If so, and the commute was a good distance, why not? For someone like Dan who commutes 60 mi a day, he may well benefit from more aero for a start. Also more aero can be stronger due to the deeper rim section. Light, aero and strong comes at a price, but it's not impossible or without benefit. The advantage of aero wheels for someone like Dan O depends largely on what terrain he travels over on his way back and forth. If a hilly route where one is either toiling up the mountain or roaring down the other side probably would see little decrease in travel time. Taking your extreme example, a pair of Zipp 303 wheels are quite light compared to most wheels with Al rims - particularly if you try to match the aero of a Zipp 303 with Al. The Al will be quite heavy by comparison. In that case hills are not a problem for Zipps. A pair weighs only about 1100 - 1200 g according to Weight Weenies. You'd be lucky to get just a back wheel in Al that aero for the same weight! But it comes at a price. Obviously if you just hoot around the corner to the grocery store for a couple of items, or idle down the street at 10 mi/h, the benefit is less. Benefit must be evaluated by the end user, but it is not restricted to people who race. That is of course true however I do suggest that the majority of the people who spend big bucks for super wheels do it primarily because they want to go fast, i.e., the racer syndrome. "the racer syndrome"? We just discussed why a commuter might like some go fast wheels, and now you equate that to some kind of affliction? Hell, Frank has aero bars on his touring bike. He must be afflicted with racer syndrome too! -- JS |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Carbon Fibre Road Frames are Delicate? Tell that 2 this guy
James wrote:
Hell, Frank has aero bars on his touring bike. He must be afflicted with racer syndrome too! I still recall - not very fondly - spending over 8 hours on them on a solo tour, riding west along the south shore of Lake Erie. And gazing down hour after hour at my cyclometer, which kept saying "8.0 mph." It was a hell of a headwind. And yes, the aero bars were both more effective and more comfortable than riding the drops. But besides fierce headwinds, I like them for the added positions on any long ride. Not only the one for which they were designed, but putting my hands on the elbow pads provides nice variety and comfort once in a while. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
Carbon Fibre Road Frames are Delicate? Tell that 2 this guy
Dan O wrote:
On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 1:57:44 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: Dan O wrote: On Monday, September 24, 2012 5:37:10 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote: On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 09:17:53 -0700 (PDT), Dan O I dont'know or care if it's accurate, but it sure comes across as disdainful. class ~ noun common 1. a collection of things sharing a common attribute Exactly my point. How can I know how he classifies "cyclists"? You _could_ politely ask. Try http://computers.toptenreviews.com/gaming/ for additional information on what constitutes a "gaming computer" (or perhaps "gamer's computer") I didn't ask what constitutes a "gamer's computer"; I questioned what might constitutes a "gamer" (in Frank's mind). If you really want to know, ask politely. Didn't want to know. I suspected as much. (Have an idea what it might be anyway - like classes of cyclists - and I'll bet it's disdainful). It's not, not at all, for either statement you complained about. http://www.pcgamer.com/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Gamer http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/no...sts-for-years/ But you'll still somehow imagine offense. -- - Frank Krygowski |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
How To Buy a New Carbon Fibre For The Giro :) | [email protected] | Techniques | 0 | January 13th 09 06:23 PM |
More Carbon Fibre | SteveA | Australia | 1 | April 19th 06 10:37 AM |
FS: carbon fibre road/race bike stem | Ian | UK | 0 | January 28th 05 09:15 PM |
Threaded one inch carbon fibre road fork $45 | Donald R ORourke | Marketplace | 0 | November 29th 04 09:08 PM |
Caring for Carbon Fibre Frames | Jason Parkes | Australia | 2 | November 15th 04 05:31 AM |