Frame Materials - Page 10
Page 10 of 11 FirstFirst ... 891011 LastLast
Results 226 to 250 of 260

Thread: Frame Materials

  1. #226
    pmf
    pmf is offline
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    5,335
    Quote Originally Posted by terbennett View Post
    +1.. I agree with this. Now that I'm in my mid 40's, I look back at the past 30 years of riding and racing. What you're saying is true. This is real world experience, not lab testing or marketing jarb. However, this is an industry and their job is to sell product. That's their livelihood. I know that most of the new tech is garbage or recycled stuff, but if this wasn't happening, less people would be on bikes and product wouldn't be selling as well as it has been. As for the steel to carbon comparison. That ride compliancy that everyone is looking for in aluminum and carbon fiber bikes, is inherent in steel bikes. Titanium is in another league all it's own. By the way, I'm not a luddite if anyone is wondering. All of my steeds are aluminum or carbon fiber( I love my Cannondales) . I am just giving credit where credit is due. My next steed will be a Colnago Masters, which is steel by the way.
    As someone in my late 50's, I seem to be travelling back in time. Increasingly, I have a preference for steel framed bikes. Only one of my five bikes are carbon, and I don't ride it much. I ride the titanium bike in the winter and use it for travelling. I was riding/racing a carbon fiber bike in the early 1990's (Kestrel 200 Sci) and taking a lot of [email protected] from the steel is real crowd about my plastic bike.

    I disagree with the OP. There's nothing wrong with spending money on a bike if it makes you happy. Name one hobby where almost anyone can afford the very top of the line. Boats? Cars? Machine guns? Plus it's a good for you hobby. Will that expensive bike make you faster? Probably not. Will 423 less grams make you top that big hill sooner? If yes, barely. But if it makes you happy and gets you out more often, its money well spent. Part of the goal of retirement is to be able to survive to enjoy it for a while.

    If titanium is in a league by itself, then why on earth aren't you getting a titanium bike next? Instead of the Master (there is no 's'), spend a bit more and get an Arabesque. But don't get the blue one --- that's mine.

    https://www.colnago.com/en/bikes/arabesque/

  2. #227
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    499
    Quote Originally Posted by duriel View Post
    What exactly is the thread length of CF in CF frames?
    From the article
    "Carbon bikes can contain up to 500 pieces of pre-preg, assembled in 40 or more layers—often combining different grades. Some pieces are as long as a down tube, while others are no bigger than a postage stamp."

    OP under informed as usual. Also, in terms of volume I really doubt Colnago has more experience than any other manufacturer and who knows if their engineers are actually more knowledgeable than the folks at Trek or Specialized.

    https://www.colnago.com/en/assistance-and-warranty/

    Colnago warranty covers all frames for 3 years if registered and purchased from a dealer. They do not specify frame material. Basically, they don't really trust anything they make.

  3. #228
    pmf
    pmf is offline
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    5,335
    Quote Originally Posted by 202cycle View Post
    From the article
    "Carbon bikes can contain up to 500 pieces of pre-preg, assembled in 40 or more layers—often combining different grades. Some pieces are as long as a down tube, while others are no bigger than a postage stamp."

    OP under informed as usual. Also, in terms of volume I really doubt Colnago has more experience than any other manufacturer and who knows if their engineers are actually more knowledgeable than the folks at Trek or Specialized.

    https://www.colnago.com/en/assistance-and-warranty/

    Colnago warranty covers all frames for 3 years if registered and purchased from a dealer. They do not specify frame material. Basically, they don't really trust anything they make.
    I'm pretty sure Colnago makes their frames from Toray tubesets. At least their Italian made "C" series frames. The rest of their bikes (except for Masters and Arabesques) are made by Giant. Toray is a world leader in carbon fiber technology and Giant has been making bikes for countless manufacturers for years. It wouldn't surprise me if many of those carbon bikes with "lifetime" warranties are made by Giant (e.g., Trek and Specialized).

    https://www.toray.us/products/prod_004.html

    If there's a manufacturing defect is a frame, it will manifest itself within three years -- and most likely a lot sooner as in when you build it up and see that something is wrong. Good luck collecting on a warranty from any manufacturer unless its an obvious manufacturing defect. Its a bike frame. They wear out over time. Saying "they don't trust anything they make" is a silly statement. No one wants to get a reputation for making things that break. Is a short warranty worse than a lifetime warranty promise that you'll never collect on? And by the way, have you, or anyone you know, ever returned a bike frame under warranty? Its a bike frame. It doesn't get much more simple. There's no moving parts.

    I'd guess the requirement that the frame be purchased through a dealer is to dissuade a grey market, and counterfeits. Kind of hard to buy a Trek or Specialized from anyone other than an authorized dealer.

    The high end Colnago carbon frames are nice. I have a C-40 that I recently refurbished that's 20 years old. It was the first successful carbon bike in the pro peloton (remember Mapeii?). The use of lugs seems cave man, but it allows them to build frames of custom geometry. I had mine custom built. You can't do that using a mold.

  4. #229
    Banned Sock Puppet
    Reputation: Lombard's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    10,399
    Quote Originally Posted by terbennett View Post
    That ride compliancy that everyone is looking for in aluminum and carbon fiber bikes, is inherent in steel bikes.
    If you are looking for compliance, look no further than YOUR TIRES. Everything else will make a negligible difference.
    "With bicycles in particular, you need to separate between what's merely true and what's important."-- DCGriz, RBR.

    “Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital.” -- Aaron Levenstein



  5. #230
    'brifter' is a lame word.
    Reputation: cxwrench's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    14,681
    Quote Originally Posted by terbennett View Post
    As for the steel to carbon comparison. That ride compliancy that everyone is looking for in aluminum and carbon fiber bikes, is inherent in steel bikes.
    No, it's not. There is so little difference in 'compliancy' that most people would be hard pressed to notice it...and I'm talking between the stiffest frame out there and the most 'compliant'. If you think that you can build a traditionally shaped frame out of any material and have 'vertical compliance' you need to rethink what's going on when you're riding your bike. Here's a hint: The seat tube has a LOT to do with it.
    I work for some bike racers
    I've got some bikes, some guns,
    and a bunch of skateboards

  6. #231
    Banned Sock Puppet
    Reputation: Lombard's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    10,399
    Quote Originally Posted by cxwrench View Post
    No, it's not. There is so little difference in 'compliancy' that most people would be hard pressed to notice it...and I'm talking between the stiffest frame out there and the most 'compliant'. If you think that you can build a traditionally shaped frame out of any material and have 'vertical compliance' you need to rethink what's going on when you're riding your bike. Here's a hint: The seat tube has a LOT to do with it.
    Seat tube?? Do tell. From my understanding, the best shock absorbers are YOU and YOUR TIRES.
    "With bicycles in particular, you need to separate between what's merely true and what's important."-- DCGriz, RBR.

    “Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital.” -- Aaron Levenstein



  7. #232
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    2,850
    Quote Originally Posted by Lombard View Post
    From my understanding, the best shock absorbers are YOU and YOUR TIRES.
    It's the legs, to be specific.

  8. #233
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    3,412
    Not if you have 15" of seat post showing!
    BANNED

  9. #234
    'brifter' is a lame word.
    Reputation: cxwrench's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    14,681
    Quote Originally Posted by Lombard View Post
    Seat tube?? Do tell. From my understanding, the best shock absorbers are YOU and YOUR TIRES.
    Exactly. The seat tube does a great job of stopping any flex that could provide 'vertical compliance'. As do most seatstays.
    I work for some bike racers
    I've got some bikes, some guns,
    and a bunch of skateboards

  10. #235
    Banned Sock Puppet
    Reputation: Lombard's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    10,399
    Quote Originally Posted by bvber View Post
    It's the legs, to be specific.
    Not unless you are out of the saddle.
    "With bicycles in particular, you need to separate between what's merely true and what's important."-- DCGriz, RBR.

    “Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital.” -- Aaron Levenstein



  11. #236
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    499
    This thread needs a little Tom Kunich input.

  12. #237
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    654
    Quote Originally Posted by Lombard View Post
    Seat tube?? Do tell. From my understanding, the best shock absorbers are YOU and YOUR TIRES.

    Isn't the entire concept of 'compliance' to reduce the impact to the rider?

  13. #238
    Banned Sock Puppet
    Reputation: Lombard's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    10,399
    Quote Originally Posted by Finx View Post
    Isn't the entire concept of 'compliance' to reduce the impact to the rider?
    Precisely. So if the best shock absorbers are the rider and the tires, what area could you improve to reduce the impact on the rider?
    "With bicycles in particular, you need to separate between what's merely true and what's important."-- DCGriz, RBR.

    “Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital.” -- Aaron Levenstein



  14. #239
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    6,356
    I find it very odd that they say carbon fiber can be made both stiff and compliant...
    Yet... nobody has managed to come up with this magical permutation... because every new model claims to be stiffer and more compliancy than the previous. LOL. Now why can't manufacturers just make a carbon frame stiff and compliant the first time around? Come on it's been 20 years since the introduction of carbon fiber in the bicycle industry and yet today we're still not perfecting the technique yet?

    I'm afraid that carbon fiber application in bike frame has reached its zenith and don't expect any more stiffness nor compliance out of it. Anyone claiming that they can now make a more compliant frame is talking BULLSYit!

  15. #240
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    6,356
    Quote Originally Posted by Lombard View Post
    Seat tube?? Do tell. From my understanding, the best shock absorbers are YOU and YOUR TIRES.
    the problem with relying on tires for compliancy is that they also ride smushy when you need instant response. And yes you can use you legs and arms for shock absorption, but then you'll get tired, hence that's where material science and design come into the rescue, something that the bicycle industry has put a huge spin on it to confuse things further.

  16. #241
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    2,850
    Quote Originally Posted by Lombard View Post
    Not unless you are out of the saddle.
    That depends on what the definition of "out" is. If it has to show a visible gap between saddle and the bike shorts, then no, it can still be legs. If it just means reducing the body weight bearing on the saddle, then yes.

  17. #242
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: velodog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    8,050
    Quote Originally Posted by aclinjury View Post
    I find it very odd that they say carbon fiber can be made both stiff and compliant...
    Yet... nobody has managed to come up with this magical permutation... because every new model claims to be stiffer and more compliancy than the previous. LOL. Now why can't manufacturers just make a carbon frame stiff and compliant the first time around? Come on it's been 20 years since the introduction of carbon fiber in the bicycle industry and yet today we're still not perfecting the technique yet?

    I'm afraid that carbon fiber application in bike frame has reached its zenith and don't expect any more stiffness nor compliance out of it. Anyone claiming that they can now make a more compliant frame is talking BULLSYit!
    Isn't that the job of the marketing dept.
    Too old to ride plastic

  18. #243
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: velodog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    8,050
    Quote Originally Posted by Lombard View Post
    Not unless you are out of the saddle.
    If you're driving the pedals it's the legs while in the saddle.
    Too old to ride plastic

  19. #244
    'brifter' is a lame word.
    Reputation: cxwrench's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    14,681
    Quote Originally Posted by aclinjury View Post
    I find it very odd that they say carbon fiber can be made both stiff and compliant...
    Yet... nobody has managed to come up with this magical permutation... because every new model claims to be stiffer and more compliancy than the previous. LOL. Now why can't manufacturers just make a carbon frame stiff and compliant the first time around? Come on it's been 20 years since the introduction of carbon fiber in the bicycle industry and yet today we're still not perfecting the technique yet?

    I'm afraid that carbon fiber application in bike frame has reached its zenith and don't expect any more stiffness nor compliance out of it. Anyone claiming that they can now make a more compliant frame is talking BULLSYit!
    You can definitely make things out of carbon and end up w/ wildly different stiffness/flexibility. I made some samples at the Cervelo facility in SoCal years ago. They were popsicle stick shaped and both were 4 layers of exactly the same uni-directional pre preg. One had the fibers all aligned lengthwise and the other had them biased at 45*, each later 90* to the ones on each side of it. The one w/ the lengthwise orientation could NOT be flexed lengthwise but could be twisted very easily. The other was exactly the opposite. That's 4 layers, super basic layup, no CAD, no CFD.
    That said it's very hard to make an object like a bicycle frame with it's conveniently located seat tube have much in the way of vertical 'compliance' unless you add some kind of pivot point, like the Domane. You can continue to make the frame laterally stiffer and stiffer, but only the marketing dept thinks this is getting you anywhere.
    Engineers and designers learn new things all the time, if your argument of 'why didn't they do this 20 years ago' was legitimate then why weren't cars as efficient and fast 20 years ago as they are today? Why is there new anything? Progress happens, just not overnight.
    I work for some bike racers
    I've got some bikes, some guns,
    and a bunch of skateboards

  20. #245
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Fredrico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    27,018
    Quote Originally Posted by Lombard View Post
    Ummm, if you lay the bike down derailleur side up, this won't happen.
    Well, you shoulda told all these guys who didn't think about that, and brought their bent derailleurs in for adjustment. Rear derailleurs are in a vulnerable position. I've seen long cages scrape the curb when rider jockeys the bike around.

    I only mention this because I've seen the dreaded bent derailleur cages many times. Short cages take a lot longer. The Shimano 600EX I ran came loose at the bushings. The late model 10 speed derailleurs down to Shimano Sora are laterally stiffer than the older ones, have to admit.

    Why would builders want to eliminate the front derailleurs and one chain ring? Front derailleurs stay put and last forever; the two I have are still original. At some point one bushing will give way, but that day hasn't arrived.

    One chain ring and a big pie plate rear cluster saves a buck, but the tradeoff isn't worth it. I'd much rather split my 12 gears between two chain rings rather than set up 12 gears in linear fashion. I can skip over 3 gears in back with an instant front derailleur shift in front. Why would I want to give that up?

  21. #246
    Banned Sock Puppet
    Reputation: Lombard's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    10,399
    Quote Originally Posted by Fredrico View Post
    Well, you shoulda told all these guys who didn't think about that, and brought their bent derailleurs in for adjustment. Rear derailleurs are in a vulnerable position. I've seen long cages scrape the curb when rider jockeys the bike around.

    I only mention this because I've seen the dreaded bent derailleur cages many times. Short cages take a lot longer. The Shimano 600EX I ran came loose at the bushings. The late model 10 speed derailleurs down to Shimano Sora are laterally stiffer than the older ones, have to admit.
    Huh?? When was the last time you worked on bikes? It's the hanger that bends, not the derailleur. That's what the hanger is for - it's a sacrificial item.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fredrico View Post
    Why would builders want to eliminate the front derailleurs and one chain ring?

    ........saves a buck.
    You answered your own question.
    "With bicycles in particular, you need to separate between what's merely true and what's important."-- DCGriz, RBR.

    “Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital.” -- Aaron Levenstein



  22. #247
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Fredrico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    27,018
    Quote Originally Posted by Lombard View Post
    His posts here are nothing compared to the vile sewage he posts over in P.O.
    Damn, Lombard, I thought we were friends! . Could we stick to the issues? Apparently not.

    Look, gang, I post the truth that I have seen many times bikes laid in the van with derailleur DOWN, often on top of other bikes with derailleurs up. Riders don't realize how delicate bikes are in the drive train. They also fall over to the right as rider handles them from the left, seldom the other way. And bingo: rear derailleur cage hits the dirt. I've seen it happen more times than I can count.

  23. #248
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Fredrico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    27,018
    Quote Originally Posted by tlg View Post
    Uh no. It doesn't.
    He started 8min ahead of the group. I caught him before half way. And finished 10-15 min ahead of him. Maybe more, I didn't stick around.

    It proves you don't need all those gears, but having them makes you faster.
    Didn't ask you what gear this fixie was using. He'd be spinning out frequently in 42-19 on a century with a bunch of big boys in their awesome compact gearing!

    Your original point however, is he'd kick everyone's a$$ if he had a higher gear, right?

  24. #249
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Fredrico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    27,018
    Quote Originally Posted by cxwrench View Post
    Exactly. The seat tube does a great job of stopping any flex that could provide 'vertical compliance'. As do most seatstays.
    True, but only between the saddle and BB, a relationship rider wants to always be the same, or on seat post shock absorbers, always return to the same height over a bump and not bounce up and down under hard pedaling.

    Shocks come from the front wheel through the fork, head tube to the seat post, and down tube to the BB, already weighted by the rider, which in turn weights the shocks coming in from the rear wheel through the chain and seat stays.

    I've always surmised the recent trend towards pencil thin seat stays is chosen as better at absorbing shock waves along their lengths than thicker stays. Same with skinny top tubes and skinnier down tubes. Monocoque frames were so uncomfortable, builders went back to smaller diameter tubes because they absorbed shocks much better. Colnago shied away from fat tubes for this reason.

    Tube diameters have an unappreciated function making the ride comfortable while not giving up response. No hydraulics necessary. Just that ole modulus of elasticity of narrow diameter tubing that oscillates as the shock waves travel along its lengths and roll off by the time they get to the seat tube.

    Long top tubes absorb shocks nicely. So do long seat posts, hear tell, the longer the better. Compact frames are touted to be stiffer than horizontal top tube frames, and therefore not quite as comfortable.

  25. #250
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Fredrico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    27,018
    Quote Originally Posted by Lombard View Post
    Huh?? When was the last time you worked on bikes? It's the hanger that bends, not the derailleur. That's what the hanger is for - it's a sacrificial item.
    .

    Yep, disposable derailleur hangers. Great point.

    The original reason was the aluminum also tended to break when bent. The old CRMO hangers could 90% of the time be bent back with the appropriate tool. If not, the drive side dropout could be replaced with a brazing torch. Ah the good ole days of brazing torches and hot metal!

    But you're right. Put the weakest link in the hanger. The old steel hangers were just too stiff.
    Last edited by Fredrico; 12-07-2019 at 09:23 PM.

Page 10 of 11 FirstFirst ... 891011 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Aluminum Frame Materials?
    By DRLski in forum Bikes, Frames and Forks
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-19-2008, 06:06 AM
  2. frame materials assistance! please?
    By celerystalksme in forum General Cycling Discussion
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 11-20-2007, 03:40 PM
  3. Profit margins of various frame materials
    By Friction_Shifter in forum Bikes, Frames and Forks
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 03-05-2006, 01:36 AM
  4. What are the pros and cons of different frame/fork materials?
    By BATMAN in forum Bikes, Frames and Forks
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-23-2005, 09:42 PM
  5. Carbon frame materials
    By power1369 in forum Bikes, Frames and Forks
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-13-2005, 04:19 PM

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

© Copyright 2020 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.