Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 200
  1. #26
    Banned forever.....or not
    Reputation: MR_GRUMPY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    23,997
    Whatever the material, a 1 kilogram frame will make you measureably faster if you weigh 75 to 90 pounds. If a person weighs over 150, the total bike/body weight becomes so high that even a 1 to 1-1/2 pound increase in frame weight, means little.
    If your opinion differs from mine, ..........Too bad.
    .
    How would you like it if Hitler killed you
    Dogbert.

    I>U

    Buying parts to hang on your bike is always easier than getting fit.

    If you feel wimpy and weak, get out and train more, ya wee lassie!

    If Jesus had a gun, he'd be alive today!

  2. #27
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,923
    Quote Originally Posted by andresmuro
    Suppose that you weigh 150 and you ride a 17 vs an 20 lb bike. The difference in weight is 1.8%. 150+17 = 167 or 150+20= 170 167 is 98.2% of 170.

    all things being equal, ie, wind, drag, clothes, water bottles, position, geometry, etc. a naked 150 pound cyclist will have a 1.8% performance difference by switching from a 20 to a 17 pound bike. The question is feeling this difference between two bikes and know that it is the frame and not something else. I doubt that human beings are able to detect the difference in performance, much less, know that it was the weight of the bike and not the clothes that you wear, the meal you had last night, or the weight of the water bottle.

    An easy comparison is to ride on a bike with two full water bottles and w/o them. I doubt that people can feel the overall performance difference.
    Exactly. And I weigh 146 .

    Yes, I'm telling you that I don't notice a difference between the 2 bikes. My records from the Garmin I use bear it out. The steel frame is plenty stiff, as is the CF frame. Once you add in the water bottles, saddle bags, and everything else, the difference isn't there.

    The only time I notice a difference is climbing. My CF bike has a compact, my steel bike has 53/39. Lower gears helps! But no other difference can I detect.

  3. #28
    Hucken The Fard Up !
    Reputation: Salsa_Lover's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,970
    Quote Originally Posted by andresmuro
    Suppose that you weigh 150 and you ride a 17 vs an 20 lb bike. The difference in weight is 1.8%. 150+17 = 167 or 150+20= 170 167 is 98.2% of 170.

    all things being equal, ie, wind, drag, clothes, water bottles, position, geometry, etc. a naked 150 pound cyclist will have a 1.8% performance difference by switching from a 20 to a 17 pound bike. The question is feeling this difference between two bikes and know that it is the frame and not something else. I doubt that human beings are able to detect the difference in performance, much less, know that it was the weight of the bike and not the clothes that you wear, the meal you had last night, or the weight of the water bottle.

    An easy comparison is to ride on a bike with two full water bottles and w/o them. I doubt that people can feel the overall performance difference.
    Errm,, I CAN really feel the 2 bottles when I going uphill
    Quote Originally Posted by zank
    They're just bikes. Ride 'em in the rain, salt, snow and crap to fully appreciate them.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sean Kelly
    The thing about the cold is that you can never tell how cold it is from looking out a kitchen window. You have to dress up, get out training and when you come back, you then know how cold it is.

  4. #29
    Home Brew User!
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    2,810
    Quote Originally Posted by aaronis31337
    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?

    I'm a pro racer and I'm here to tell you that Carbon is faster.
    Joined the other team in the name of the economy

  5. #30
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: spade2you's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    12,085
    In regards to riders not being able to feel the weight of about 2 water bottles, us climber folk sure can, then again I'm 120lbs. I certainly noticed when I switched to my race wheels and dropped my gear bag for races. My race bike should be ablut 4lbs lighter than my usual road bike, but I'll refrain from any comments until I can clock it up a hill.

  6. #31
    Not a rocket surgeon.
    Reputation: tihsepa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    9,402
    Quote Originally Posted by Lifelover
    I'm a pro racer and I'm here to tell you that Carbon is faster.
    Well thats all I needed to hear.

  7. #32
    pedalpedalpedal
    Reputation: f3rg's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    895
    Carbon is waaaay faster.... at breaking.





  8. #33
    Old and Fixed, Moderator
    Reputation: Dave Hickey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    20,473
    Quote Originally Posted by A from Il
    Well thats all I needed to hear.

    Good enough for me....I'm selling all my steel bikes and buying a carbon bike
    Dave Hickey/ Fort Worth

    My 3Rensho Blog: http://vintage3rensholove.blogspot.com/

  9. #34
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: JimP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    985
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Hickey
    Good enough for me....I'm selling all my steel bikes and buying a carbon bike
    Hey Dave,

    When's the garage sale start??

    Jim
    Jim Purdy - Mansfield, TX

  10. #35
    Roadbike Rider
    Reputation: Chainstay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    1,260
    Quote Originally Posted by andresmuro
    Suppose that you weigh 150 and you ride a 17 vs an 20 lb bike. The difference in weight is 1.8%. 150+17 = 167 or 150+20= 170 167 is 98.2% of 170.

    all things being equal, ie, wind, drag, clothes, water bottles, position, geometry, etc. a naked 150 pound cyclist will have a 1.8% performance difference by switching from a 20 to a 17 pound bike. The question is feeling this difference between two bikes .
    It's not even close to 1.8% because the air resistance and rolling resistance account for about 90% of the resistance (I'm guessing). The 3 lb total system weight saving would be a 0.18% advantage on the flat. You will notice it on the hills though, especially if you are responding to accelerations on the hills
    "It's supposed to be automatic, but actually you have to push this button. "
    John Brunner (Stand on Zanzibar)

  11. #36
    Skepticynisism
    Reputation: Buzzard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    391
    Lighter is faster - in general. It's physics. Even if the difference is miniscule. If you accept the premise that carbon is lighter...then yes, carbon bikes are faster.

  12. #37
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Kuma601's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,358
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Hickey
    Good enough for me....I'm selling all my steel bikes and buying a carbon bike
    Sounds like a good sale...I'm also willing to help clean your garage of that useless parts cache.

    How about this bike?
    Attached Images Attached Images  

  13. #38
    Adorable Furry Hombre
    Reputation: Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    26,864
    Quote Originally Posted by Buzzard
    Lighter is faster - in general. It's physics. Even if the difference is miniscule. If you accept the premise that carbon is lighter...then yes, carbon bikes are faster.
    Uh yea...it ain't just weight it is aerodynamics. and the bike is the LEAST important element in either case.
    "Refreshingly Unconcerned With The Vulgar Exigencies Of Veracity "

  14. #39
    Skepticynisism
    Reputation: Buzzard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    391
    Quote Originally Posted by Marc
    Uh yea...it ain't just weight it is aerodynamics. and the bike is the LEAST important element in either case.
    I agree 100%, but you're introducing new variables into the equation. If you normalize ALL other variables and accept the premise that carbon is lighter...then yes, carbon bikes are faster.

    Not that I have to qualify that statement, but I believe you can normalize all other variables with today's carbon technologies. Maybe I'm wrong. What did I miss?

  15. #40
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    224

    Imho, No!

    Quote Originally Posted by aaronis31337
    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?
    I have limited experience with a carbon fiber frame. And that frame/bike is a road bike rather than a pure race bike. My pure race bike has a steel frame, is heavier, and yet is faster. As people have noted, there are too many variables in the total bike.

    Weight is your enemy on ascents, probably your friend on descents. Weight, especially rotational weight is your enemy when you accelerate to a sprint speed. Aerodynamics are important all the time in riding. I think the main place carbon frames may provide a benefit a real benefit is ride quality. Steel frames can beat you up a bit on long rides, causing fatigue. I just bought a Lynskey Titanium frame and it is very rigid. Weather hasn't permitted me to ride it on the road. But a short test ride of a Lynskey last fall was very, very rough on smooth streets...I felt every (I mean every) road imperfection. However, two customers in the shop told me all the roughness goes away at speed on that frame. They said they did not know why it was so. I don't know about Neuvation and have no opinion. How's the ride for you? If it beats you up on long rides, maybe you should consider a different frame. If you want weight reduction, try lighter wheels...that's rotational weight (you have to move it linearly and rotationally). You might have very experienced, knowledgeable rider (racer) or an honest LBS check out your bike as is and suggest weight and aerodynamic drag reductions. I suspect that they will allow you to become only marginally faster. Make sure your bike fit and riding form is proper.

    A carbon fiber frame just won't make that much difference either. Yeah, every pro I've seen in the Euro-races seems to be riding carbon fiber frames. But they don't have to pay for their bikes, probably ride it for one season only. Carbon fiber frames are a tad fragile and most manufacturers don't offer much of a warranty.

    So why did I order a 2010 Pinarello Dogma 60.1? Good question.

  16. #41
    Resident Dutchbag
    Reputation: rogger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    11,862
    Quote Originally Posted by Midwest Playa
    Joel

    I know you are smarter than that. You are trying to tell everyone here that you can travel the same distance and same time between the 20 lb steel bike and the 17 lbs carbon bike?? and no diffrence?? hmm you must have robot like legs and have cruise control that when you set it at a certain speed it does not matter how heavy the bike is.

    Platy get rid of that Scott Frame and go back to a steel frame.LOLS

    MidwestPlaya
    There's a place for the likes of you. Please stay there.
    Originally posted by thatsmybush:
    I can only speak for my self, but if Fergie wanted to rub her lovely lady lumps on me, I could play the role of "human stripper pole."

  17. #42
    semi-literate moron
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    151
    Great video. That guy is bonkers.

    The common sense science featured in that video is exactly why I'm switching from carbon to ti... I know that "graphs and numbers" science tells us that carbon is stronger than alloys, that the material's only weakness is potential sudden failure if the structure is already damaged... But I gotta be honest, I've never really bought that. Because I know if stood on the seatstays of my carbon frame, which is fairly new and has no damage, it would still break. My alloy frames would not.

    People will say standing on a seatstay is an unfair assessment of a frame material's strength, because the frame is not designed for that sort of stress. Fair enough, but it does show that the material can fail catastrophically simply by having stress applied, without prior damage. Stress that steel and aluminum can endure. Translate that over to an area on the frame that is stressed during regular usage of the frame... All the graphs and numbers in the world aren't convincing enough- alloys are just stronger, period.

    I'm not saying people shouldn't ride carbon. I've ridden many carbon bikes without incident. But lately it's been so easy to build a sub 6.8kg bike, that frame material is becoming increasingly irrelevant in terms of weight... Carbon isn't that much lighter than quality alloy or ti... Even some of the new steel frames are coming in at right around the Kilogram mark. You're saving most of your weight in the wheels and components. So with weight becoming less of a factor, what other qualities does one buy a frame for? Ride quality is certainly nicer on steel or ti. Getting an extremely stiff bottom bracket and stays is no longer an issue thanks to the shaped tubes of many of the new steel and ti bikes. Durability is not even a contest... At least not when one goes by common sense science- numbers and graphs would have us believe otherwise.

    My reasoning is why not have a sub 15lb bike that you never have to worry about? Just because I've never had a failure on a carbon bike doesn't mean it wouldn't happen. I ride with a slew of folks around the SoCal area, and I've heard about and seen tons of carbon failures... I know alloys can fail too, but you just don't see or hear about them that much.

    As for pros riding carbon... Ridiculous. Pros ride what they are required to. Carbon is the material for high end bikes right now, and pros ride what the manufacturer wants to sell. Many people still think there are huge strides to be made in alloys... Not just Lynskey, big names like Pinarello. He tried to push the magnesium Dogma for years- it's his belief that alloys are still largely unexplored and hold huge potential for new frame super materials... Unfortunately, the market didn't agree, and they were forced to redesign the Dogma in carbon. If I had to guess, I would say the majority of the pros, if given their absolute druthers, would probably be on either shaped ti, or some of the new super light steels. The ride is just out of this world.

    I think most of the people who talk about carbon having a fantastic feel came into cycling during the dark ages of the 90's and early 2000's... When steel was mostly out, aluminum ruled, and the technology for building an aluminum frame was still at a point where even most high-end bikes were very harsh. Carbon came along and offered a suppleness approaching steel, with a stiffness approaching aluminum. Unfortunately, just as carbon was becoming the standard, that's when many breakthroughs in alloys started happening... Look at Deda U2- that stuff is incredible, but it dropped just when most manufacturer's high-end lineups were going fully carbon. Who's going to buy a 3k alloy frame that's not ti? When everyone is screaming that carbon is the greatest stuff ever? U2 builds a sub kg frame, stiff where it needs to be, and supple. Literally, you were seeing 890g U2 frames when the lightest carbon frames were not yet below the 1kg mark. And it could survive a crash. Sure, it wasn't crazy durable like steel or ti, but it beat carbon on that front. Still, nobody bought it.

    My feeling is that while carbon is at the height of it's powers right now, of course a new material will come along. Maybe it will be some new ceramic. Maybe it will be some strange plasticized alloy. Whatever it is, it would be nice if it took a page out of steel or ti's playbook, and brought durability and impact resistance back to the game... Not ever worrying about your frame is a good thing.

  18. #43
    Old and Fixed, Moderator
    Reputation: Dave Hickey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    20,473
    Quote Originally Posted by Buzzard
    accept the premise that carbon is lighter...then yes, carbon bikes are faster.
    I'll accept the premise that carbon can be lighter...But it isn't always the case.

    There is a misconception out there today that, just because a bike is made from carbon, it is better, lighter, stiffer, more compliant, than a bike made out of other materials...

    Carbon can be a great material for a frame....but not necessarily so...
    Dave Hickey/ Fort Worth

    My 3Rensho Blog: http://vintage3rensholove.blogspot.com/

  19. #44
    We're no better than mice
    Reputation: EverydayRide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    6,879
    Quote Originally Posted by aaronis31337
    Hello everybody.
    So, for people that actually have upgraded from AL/Steel/TI to carbon, is this something I'd notice?
    Rode steel and aluminum for years up until 2008. Then a mix carbon fork [alloyed steering tube] and rear carbon seat and chain stays [Trek 2100]. Loved the vibration reduction on carbon. I was told that if you ride a full carbon frame and fork it gets better.

    I bought a Cannondale Super Six 2008 model in 2009 February. Been riding it for 9,000 miles so far. It's a 58 cm frame [actually a 57 cm] and everything including cranks and seat post are in carbon. I commute. The ride is great. It's smooth. Vibration is reduced considerably over aluminum and steel. Handling is great too. But the geometry is not like the other bikes I've owned so this may have allot to do with the over all feedback of the frame set. I also lost 40 lbs riding it too. That's a 16 lb bike and I just lost 2.4 times its weight.

    Speed? Go for rotational weight reduction in wheels, tire pressure and stuff like that before hunting for grams in frames. Healthy piss before mounting helps too.

  20. #45
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    190
    seriously.... loose? seriously?

  21. #46
    vexatious enigma
    Reputation: waldo425's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    4,696
    Quote Originally Posted by A from Il
    South of he equator it is. Unless you are already south of the equator. Then no.
    Want to ride faster? Get this guy to chase you.
    I feel faster already
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeDaddio
    Unlike Roebuck, you do "do" people.
    Maybe Judas did it for a Klondike bar.

    Life in the fast lane with no brakes

  22. #47
    T K
    T K is offline
    wasssabi
    Reputation: T K's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    2,044
    That video proves nothing except if you ride a carbon bike stay away from ABBA listening crazy German mother fluckers! Hillarious! I have to go back and watch that again.

  23. #48
    Home Brew User!
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    2,810
    Quote Originally Posted by A from Il
    Well thats all I needed to hear.

    We are talking about sail boats and F1 cars aren't we?
    Joined the other team in the name of the economy

  24. #49
    Ten Dollar Jockey
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    73

    Rocket Ship

    I switched from a Canondale Alumi bike - 22 pounds to a Kuota KOM at 14.8 pounds. I am faster (average speeds are higher, climb speeds are faster), but I am a crappy rider relative to my group (so I bought my improvement).

    The Kuota uses a cf manufacturer that supplies cf for some of the F1 cars (ooohhh), but many of the tubes are squarish, so it is stiff as hell and HURTS LIKE HELL.

    Some bumps convert my nuts to tonsils (good thing tonsils are gone, or no room for the nuts).

    If I were man enough to be fast on what I had - I'd stick there. Maybe one day if I spend enough $$, I can be up front.

    I have figured out that money can compensate for a lot of things. Money won't buy you love, but it will buy you affection so close that you'll never know the difference.

    p.s. The 22 pound bike met with an SUV, and their insurance company bought me the Kuota. The Kuota hurts me more than the SUV. I guess they're laughing now.

  25. #50
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: velodog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    7,193
    Drop a steel frame and a carbon frame from the highest buildings roof that you can get on and the faster frame will hit the ground first.

Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

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 2018 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.