Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678
Results 176 to 200 of 200
  1. #176
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: taodemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    739
    Quote Originally Posted by woodys737 View Post
    I think taodemon is spot on. Carbon frames are faster more due to being able to tube shaping v. straight round tube bikes we rode in the 80's and prior. Whether it is noticeable or not is another story. I agree 10 lbs off the body is noticeable. Been there. Not the point however. As much as people don't want to admit it, engineers have been able to make bikes measurably more aero and lighter. Both equal more speed. Not much but, again measurable.
    Exactly. Also, dropping 10lbs might not be feasible for everyone depending on what weight they are at to start with. Cycling has already brought me back down to my high school weight. While another 10lbs might be possible, it would require a lot more time than my current 5k miles/year of riding takes while also drastically reducing my calorie intake, and part of my reason for cycling is that it allows me to keep eating a lot of those foods that otherwise had added 15-20lbs or more before I was cycling.

    I just dropped 200 grams going from one carbon frame to another carbon frame. I did it for the aero improvements, the weight just happened to be an added bonus. Aluminum frames have gotten pretty good though with some even adding some aero elements but still fall behind carbon in both aspects. But again, it all depends on what features or aspects you personally care about and are willing to pay for.

    None of this will keep a much stronger rider from dropping me on a long climb, but it does make me faster than if I was riding a non aero 20lb bike.

    There is no shame in riding a non carbon frame if it makes you happy or if you feel they aren't worth it.

  2. #177
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by taodemon View Post
    I’m pretty sure engine being the most important factor has been mentioned at least once already. That said the same rider on a lighter and/or more aerodynamic frame will typically be faster than if he was riding a heavier round tube bike. Are the difference enough to warrant buying a carbon frame? That part depends on the priorities of the individual cyclist.

    5 lbs Lighter is only seven seconds faster only for very light riders up a a fairly steep one mile hill and is slower downhill. Turns out my friend with the carbon bike only weighs ten pounds less than me and his bike a further 3 or so pounds less than my steel bike. Sitting in the same positions on downhills on our last ride I rocketed past him coasting on every downhill no matter the slope and he would have to pedal away to keep up with me. To me he used a lot more energy to keep up with me on downhills than I use to get up hills faster than him. I think you said you get downhill faster than heavier riders...I don’t think you are talking about coasting faster than them...I think you must be using your riding skills...say like not using your brakes etc.

    Ps....I would like to see a test showing how a 2018 carbon pinarello with fat tubes and 25 mm tires is a lot more aero than say my 1978 Pinarello with its skinny steel tubes and 20 mm tires. When I look at carbon bikes they don’t look more aero than an old steel bike. I could see how an aero carbon bike is more aero than a standard carbon bike, but how much more aero is it really than a thin-tubed steel bike?
    ps2...I have noticed that carbon bikes are noisy...lol....all kinds of creaks while going along and even the shifting is noisy...lol

  3. #178
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: taodemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    739
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XE_GKePa3CQ

    This is a video from the old generation venge vs a steel bike. The old venge was 50s faster than the steel bike using the same aero wheels on both.

    The new pinarello F10 is faster than the old venge (for reference new venge supposedly is around 50-60s faster than the old venge over 40km). I'm not an aerodynamics specialist but I believe it is more about what the tube shapes make the air do as it passes over the frame and leaves behind the frame then the width of the profile cutting through the air.

    As for skills descending this happens on straight descents where no braking or skill necessarily is required.
    Last edited by taodemon; 08-13-2018 at 06:01 AM.

  4. #179
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    1,450
    Interesting video.
    But, luddites and specialized.
    So, video will be given less weight than unsubstantiated subjective opinions.

  5. #180
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: taodemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    739
    Quote Originally Posted by crit_boy View Post
    Interesting video.
    But, luddites and specialized.
    So, video will be given less weight than unsubstantiated subjective opinions.
    I'm sure the testing is very similar to what all the other brands do for their aero bikes but not all of them seem to make these videos or at least not videos as easily found through google.

  6. #181
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by taodemon View Post
    I'm sure the testing is very similar to what all the other brands do for their aero bikes but not all of them seem to make these videos or at least not videos as easily found through google.
    ...yes, very interesting..think it said thirty seconds over 40km. A commentor below the video asked how much effort it would take to make up that 30 seconds. I assume size of the rider would impact that 30 seconds. I would assume a taller or wider rider would get less help percentage-wise from an aero frame...just guessing that.

    found this comment on a ‘study’ of a 5 km climb in Bicycling...

    “He posited a 5 kilometer, 7% grade. That's a good, stiff climb. The legendary Stelvio climb averages 7.5%. He further assumed a rider who can kick out 250 watts. A 160 pound rider (WHO’s 160?) will take 19 minutes and 21 seconds to get up the hill. Every 5 pounds added make the trip up the hill take 30 seconds longer.

    That means each added pound adds 6 seconds to the time it takes to get up this hill. That is only 6 seconds on a stiff, 20 minute climb.

    So, given our roughly 4-pound range from a full steel bike to a super-light carbon or aluminum bike, the time difference up this hill would be 24 seconds from best to worst.

    But, most weight conscious people aren't bringing their bikes down to 15 pounds because down at that weight, the handling gets very sketchy. 17 - 17.5 pounds is the normal range. The real discussion is about 1.5 to 2 pounds.

    The performance advantage of a lighter bike is greatest when the hill is steepest. What happens as things flatten out? Then, as the speed of the bike increases, the resistance comes from the wind, tire rolling resistance, bearing drag, etc. Those 6 seconds/pound grow ever smaller.”

  7. #182
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Fredrico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    24,784
    Quote Originally Posted by redcolnago View Post
    ...yes, very interesting..think it said thirty seconds over 40km. A commentor below the video asked how much effort it would take to make up that 30 seconds. I assume size of the rider would impact that 30 seconds. I would assume a taller or wider rider would get less help percentage-wise from an aero frame...just guessing that.

    found this comment on a ‘study’ of a 5 km climb in Bicycling...

    “He posited a 5 kilometer, 7% grade. That's a good, stiff climb. The legendary Stelvio climb averages 7.5%. He further assumed a rider who can kick out 250 watts. A 160 pound rider (WHO’s 160?) will take 19 minutes and 21 seconds to get up the hill. Every 5 pounds added make the trip up the hill take 30 seconds longer.

    That means each added pound adds 6 seconds to the time it takes to get up this hill. That is only 6 seconds on a stiff, 20 minute climb.

    So, given our roughly 4-pound range from a full steel bike to a super-light carbon or aluminum bike, the time difference up this hill would be 24 seconds from best to worst.

    But, most weight conscious people aren't bringing their bikes down to 15 pounds because down at that weight, the handling gets very sketchy. 17 - 17.5 pounds is the normal range. The real discussion is about 1.5 to 2 pounds.

    The performance advantage of a lighter bike is greatest when the hill is steepest. What happens as things flatten out? Then, as the speed of the bike increases, the resistance comes from the wind, tire rolling resistance, bearing drag, etc. Those 6 seconds/pound grow ever smaller.”
    Or reversed with 4 more pounds of inertial mass! . Not to mention the soul Tullio Campagnolo infused in every one of his ball bearings!

    So there ya go, mathematical proof that a 4# heavier steel behemoth from the ancient '80s can keep up with, or possibly pass, a gossamer carbon mount under a heavier rider. Been there and done that hundreds of times. And then there was this retarded kid who time trialed his 35 pound mountain bike for 5 miles at 25 mph on the MUT.

    How the bike handles, how it responds, is always what separates art from pretension. Weight is a minor part of the equation, as the math shows.

    Yes, shave off weight much below 18#, the frame can't handle the abuses of hard riding and fail structurally. Gravel bikes are weighing 24# for a reason. Reviews don't even mention it.

  8. #183
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Mackers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    245
    So what you're saying is that if I put enough heavy stuff on my bike to get to 18 pounds I'll be safe?

    Who knew....

  9. #184
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: taodemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    739
    If 15lb bikes didn't fail structurally and couldn't handle the abuse imagine how much more they would be used by pro racers. Oh wait...

  10. #185
    tlg
    tlg is offline
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: tlg's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    12,606
    Quote Originally Posted by redcolnago View Post
    But, most weight conscious people aren't bringing their bikes down to 15 pounds because down at that weight, the handling gets very sketchy. 17 - 17.5 pounds is the normal range.
    Whatchu talking about?
    Custom Di2 & Garmin/GoPro mounts 2013 SuperSix EVO Hi-MOD Team * 2004 Klein Aura V

  11. #186
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: AndreSF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    111
    Quote Originally Posted by mendo View Post
    ... a wheel upgrade would make more of a difference than an "upgrade" to carbon, and it would probably be significantly cheeper.
    ^^^ this ^^^

    Wheels and tires will make way more of a difference than the frame material, but there's so much more to it than the material to determining how a frame performs. The geometry can affect climbing, descending and power transfer.
    Pop a wheelie!

    Icicle Bay a.k.a. Beetlebaum - Black Cat Disc Roadie
    Tang (CX) - 198? Curtlo Cyclocross (she's heavy, but she's mine)

  12. #187
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    294
    Quote Originally Posted by aaronis31337 View Post
    Hello everybody.

    My last few rides have been with the local cycling group on what's called the "hay ride". This is a pretty aggressive ride with several sprint points and I found myself pushing my bike harder than I ever have before.

    Just for reference, I ride a double-butted TI frame with Neuvation or Aksium wheels. I've never been on a carbon race bike.

    So, I was talking with some folks and they said that when they upgraded to a quality carbon bike, they were SOOO much faster.

    Then I spoke with others (older folks) who said the only thing they found that made them faster were light wheels with sew-ups.

    Do you really loose that much energy from a bike if you're not a pro cat1 racer? I'm not even sure what flex feels like, but there's a good chance i've been feeling it all along. This ride I've been doing (now my favorite ride) is worth upgrading my rig for -- but only if it keeps me in the top four finishers (which I already am). Now, I want to be that guy who makes a brake away at the last mile and no one can catch up. I think I'm there, but who knows.

    So, for people that actually have upgraded from AL/Steel/TI to carbon, is this something I'd notice?
    https://youtu.be/V4JAvQCp8ww


    I think this link sums it up quite well.

    The answer is a unequivocal “no”. They are not “that much” faster.

  13. #188
    'brifter' is a lame word.
    Reputation: cxwrench's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    13,257
    Quote Originally Posted by Waspinator View Post
    https://youtu.be/V4JAvQCp8ww


    I think this link sums it up quite well.

    The answer is a unequivocal “no”. They are not “that much” faster.
    ^This!^ There is no way getting a different bike is going actually make you faster...no matter what people 'feel' it's not going to happen.
    I work for some bike racers
    I've got some bikes, some guns,
    and a bunch of skateboards

  14. #189
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Fredrico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    24,784
    Quote Originally Posted by taodemon View Post
    If 15lb bikes didn't fail structurally and couldn't handle the abuse imagine how much more they would be used by pro racers. Oh wait...
    Frames start to lose structural integrity on bikes lighter than 18#. The tubing breaks in a crash quite readily. If you've got a follow vehicle with another free bike, that's not an issue.

    Nice stiff wheels transfer energy to the road better than cheap wheels, and tires soften road shocks, but the frame holds rider and bike together whacking up the hills and battling up to 50 mph headwinds, and responds faithfully to the commands of the rider.

    I know this from changing components on an old steel frame to a new steel frame, hand brazed just for me. It accelerated effortlessly and climbed like a bandit, on the same wheels and tires. The previous frame handled reasonably well unloaded, but went flippy loaded up. The new frame was a little stiff unloaded, but was still as responsive loaded as unloaded. Put a stiff pair of wheels on a flippy frame and the ride will still be flippy. I did that first before changing the frame.

    The frame is the heart of the bike. It makes all the difference in the world, but isn't easily measurable like tire pressure. Riders don't feel it until the going gets high wattage, 350+. For lots of recreational riders that hardly ever happens.
    Last edited by Fredrico; 08-25-2018 at 04:03 PM.

  15. #190
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: PBL450's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    3,851
    Quote Originally Posted by cxwrench View Post
    ^This!^ There is no way getting a different bike is going actually make you faster...no matter what people 'feel' it's not going to happen.
    Oh stop! Someone has to say it, the material used to make the bike frame is the only real determinant of the riders speed. Everyone knows this. Components are irrelevant. Even the rider is irrelevant. It’s the frame material that matters and when it’s carbon fiber it’s automatically faster! I think we can consider the issue closed.
    To date, philosophers have merely interpreted the world in various ways. The point however is to change it.

  16. #191
    'brifter' is a lame word.
    Reputation: cxwrench's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    13,257
    Quote Originally Posted by PBL450 View Post
    Oh stop! Someone has to say it, the material used to make the bike frame is the only real determinant of the riders speed. Everyone knows this. Components are irrelevant. Even the rider is irrelevant. It’s the frame material that matters and when it’s carbon fiber it’s automatically faster! I think we can consider the issue closed.
    Ok, you're right.


    I work for some bike racers
    I've got some bikes, some guns,
    and a bunch of skateboards

  17. #192
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: 11spd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    1,745
    Quote Originally Posted by PBL450 View Post
    Oh stop! Someone has to say it, the material used to make the bike frame is the only real determinant of the riders speed. Everyone knows this. Components are irrelevant. Even the rider is irrelevant. It’s the frame material that matters and when it’s carbon fiber it’s automatically faster! I think we can consider the issue closed.
    You are right of course.
    I have two bikes of similar geometry both drop bar. One is my go fast bike and has a lot of carbon including handlebars and cranks...but not wheels. Other is Aluminum and I use it for light touring and keep a rack on it.

    Honestly, on the flat....the bikes vary in weight by about 5 lbs...both with Campy and Campy wheels, there is almost nothing between them in spite of the rack on the back no doubt catching some wind. I ride it with platform pedals and what I really enjoy is...keeping up with full kitted riders on their all carbon bikes with $2K deep section wheels. They hate the fact that I can keep up rack and all...lol.

    If I deny all the blather on the web about carbon having a better ride, I may even prefer the ride of the Al bike. I truthfully love the feel of it. It feels a bit more springy and alive. If I kitted it like the carbon bike which probably weighs 400g or about a lb heavier on frameset, I am sure there would be nothing between the bikes. One frame costs $1K more than the other. Modern Al is outstanding and only difference if choosing the latest Al frames compared to carbon is about 200g or so or less than 1/2 of pound. Modern Al frames are sometimes lighter than older carbon race frames. They all have carbon forks of course.

  18. #193
    Boobies!
    Reputation: paredown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    8,006
    Quote Originally Posted by redcolnago View Post
    But, most weight conscious people aren't bringing their bikes down to 15 pounds because down at that weight, the handling gets very sketchy. 17 - 17.5 pounds is the normal range. The real discussion is about 1.5 to 2 pounds.
    Note--the comment was not about durability of a light bike, but about handling. Anyone who has moved from an old school steel frame (say 21+ pounds) to a new carbon in the 16-18 pound range) must have noticed the difference in handling.

    For sure turn-in is faster (I think a function of moment of inertia because of lighter weight), you are more sensitive to buffeting in cross-winds--there are a bunch of changes, and not all of them favorable. (This was noticeable on the two Colnagos with identical geo/trail etc--and they are not known as twitchy or quick...)

    In pretty close succession I moved from a conventional all steel (Reynolds 531), to a Colnago Tecnos (lighter steel with carbon fork), to Colnago CT-1 (titanium, carbon stays and fork) and more recently to an all carbon frame. The group/wheels stayed the same as I "upgraded".

    No question that at the lightest end of the spectrum (all carbon) there are changes in how the bike tracks, absorbs road irregularities and responds to things like cross winds. (It is not a weight-weenie build, so I think I am at around 18 lbs on a L frame.) I remember actually being surprised at how much "lighter" or how much movement I could feel in cross winds with the CT-1 for example. Now with my Look 585, I am more used to that handling so I am no longer surprised by it, but you do have to adjust your riding habits. Better dampening on broken pavement from the carbon definitely goes on the plus side...

    Whether or not the sweet spot for weight is to do with durability, handling or some combination of both, I don't know although personally I think it is a combination. I found it interesting reading about Dario Pegoretti's design philosophy for the Falz carbon fork--'not the lightest' he says, because he had other considerations for handling and durability...
    Last edited by paredown; 08-26-2018 at 04:47 AM.
    "A man is judged by the company he keeps, and a company is judged by the men it keeps, and the people of Democratic nations are judged by the type and caliber of officers they elect."
    William J.H. Boetcker

  19. #194
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    3,485
    Quote Originally Posted by 11spd View Post
    keeping up with full kitted riders on their all carbon bikes with $2K deep section wheels. They hate the fact that I can keep up rack and all...lol.
    Thread drift////I always wanted to show up at the local fast group ride with all the team kitted out guys (I'm one of them) in a tee shirt and cut off jean shorts and mix it up. Maybe a tuxedo jersey or even a cookie monster jersey.

    while riding a local poser ride with guys who just started riding in the 2010's (so they know it all) we passed an older gent just flying up a gentle grade on an older metal bike with maybe OP's, platform pedals, no helmet, just tee shirt and baggy shorts. Some in the group made comments abou the no helmet or the bike or the lack of kit, whatever. Us older wankers had nothing but, praise and admiration for this old dude. He was clearly on the poorer side of the tracks and just out doing what he loved and doing it well. No doubt he couldn't afford all the latest BS us poser, kitted out morons had to have. Such a great lesson if you are open to it. I don't know. Maybe I saw myself in the guy as that's the way I started. Point is I never understand why humans look down at someone who doesn't fit their mold. Ride what you got is what counts.

  20. #195
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: 11spd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    1,745
    Quote Originally Posted by woodys737 View Post
    Thread drift////I always wanted to show up at the local fast group ride with all the team kitted out guys (I'm one of them) in a tee shirt and cut off jean shorts and mix it up. Maybe a tuxedo jersey or even a cookie monster jersey.

    while riding a local poser ride with guys who just started riding in the 2010's (so they know it all) we passed an older gent just flying up a gentle grade on an older metal bike with maybe OP's, platform pedals, no helmet, just tee shirt and baggy shorts. Some in the group made comments abou the no helmet or the bike or the lack of kit, whatever. Us older wankers had nothing but, praise and admiration for this old dude. He was clearly on the poorer side of the tracks and just out doing what he loved and doing it well. No doubt he couldn't afford all the latest BS us poser, kitted out morons had to have. Such a great lesson if you are open to it. I don't know. Maybe I saw myself in the guy as that's the way I started. Point is I never understand why humans look down at someone who doesn't fit their mold. Ride what you got is what counts.
    I'm the fully kitted out rider on carbon bike too, but I also have a casual side when I ride to the beach with my rack in tennis shoes. I catch fast guys all the time on the trail and ride along. The bike matters a little but not that much. Unless racing and sprinting and hill climbing, I am about as fast on platform pedals as well.

  21. #196
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    2,003
    Quote Originally Posted by cxwrench View Post
    ^This!^ There is no way getting a different bike is going actually make you faster...no matter what people 'feel' it's not going to happen.
    Total nonsense. My aero road bike is demonstrably faster than my other road bike.

    As evidenced by actual data.

    And if you want to get into how different positions due to a different bike affects speed (e.g. a tt bike will actually make you faster), then we can go even further.

  22. #197
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    2,003
    Quote Originally Posted by Waspinator View Post
    https://youtu.be/V4JAvQCp8ww


    I think this link sums it up quite well.

    The answer is a unequivocal “no”. They are not “that much” faster.
    Really? And you got that...how?

    Because all I heard was "that's probably worth a good 15-20 seconds, and more aerodynamic is probably worth 5-10 seconds".

    So wtf kind of test was that, where they do it, and then guess at the results?

    The answer to your link being in any way useful is an unequivocal no.

  23. #198
    Rub it............
    Reputation: frdfandc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    3,523
    Quote Originally Posted by Fredrico View Post
    Frames start to lose structural integrity on bikes lighter than 18#. The tubing breaks in a crash quite readily. If you've got a follow vehicle with another free bike, that's not an issue.
    Where are you getting this information from? You may want to put the pipe down.

    The only instance I have heard of this was the Scott carbon bikes when they were 13 lb bikes due to a very light built frame.

    Carbon is stronger than you think. I have seen riders hit by cars where the bike fared way better than the rider. But yes, when carbon does brake it is a catastrophic failure.
    You can't fix stupid.

    Quote Originally Posted by JoeDaddio

    I kind of wish it were legal to staple people in the face.

  24. #199
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    3,424
    carbon is just a material. materials don't make bikes faster

  25. #200
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    2,664
    Yea, but I think carbon cranks definitely are!
    BANNED

Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

THE SITE

ABOUT ROADBIKEREVIEW

VISIT US AT

roadbikereview.com and the ConsumerReview Network are business units of Invenda Corporation

(C) Copyright 1996-2018. All Rights Reserved.