• 01-14-2019
    BCSaltchucker
    I don't buy that Ti frames are too expensive for a pro team. These team budget would hardly be affected by the difference in cost. When I have shopped for frames for myself, it really is the carbon frames which seem to retail for the higher prices. A nice Lynskey Ti frame can be had for as low as $600 these days and commons around $1000 - a made in USA hand-welded legit Ti racing frame, made by the same people who founded and made those Litespeed for nigh on 30 years. When I shopped for a carbon frame last year I had to settle for a 3 yr old leftover model for $1000 (Kona Superjake), and more recently I have been shopping for a full sus trail bike carbon frame and they start at about $2000 for a 2 year old model, and $3-5k for a nice new one. I know an S-Works carbon Road frame on par with what more pro teams us is like $4-5k or so nowadays too - definitely no more than a custom order, high-margin Seven Ti frame.

    Carbon frames are also extremely labour intensive to produce, compared to alu and steel, and perhaps similar or more labour intensive than Ti from what I can tell.

    I just think Ti isn't used because technology has moved on, the Carbon is lighter and the companies in the business of sponsoring pro cycling want them on the latest carbon steeds because that is what sells. But price is not important in this equation - and even if it was the Ti would not cost more.
  • 01-14-2019
    asgelle
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by BCSaltchucker View Post
    I don't buy that Ti frames are too expensive for a pro team.

    No Pro Tour team pays for frames. Theyíre all given free frames plus significant cash. At the Continental level, teams may have to buy frames at a discount, but any team that has to buy its frames does have budget worries that would make cost a significant consideration.
  • 01-14-2019
    BCSaltchucker
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by asgelle View Post
    No Pro Tour team pays for frames. Theyíre all given free frames plus significant cash. At the Continental level, teams may have to buy frames at a discount, but any team that has to buy its frames does have budget worries that would make cost a significant consideration.

    I agree. And a conti or lower team could likely find Ti frames for as cheap as any carbon frame. But they'd find so much more to choose from in carbon, and knowing they are lighter and perhaps better, I can't see them choosing Ti - even if the Ti frames where cheaper.

    (I have no dog in the hunt. Ride both ti and carbon, and also Alu and steel, myself)
  • 01-14-2019
    Marc
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by BCSaltchucker View Post
    I agree. And a conti or lower team could likely find Ti frames for as cheap as any carbon frame. But they'd find so much more to choose from in carbon, and knowing they are lighter and perhaps better, I can't see them choosing Ti - even if the Ti frames where cheaper.

    (I have no dog in the hunt. Ride both ti and carbon, and also Alu and steel, myself)

    Genesis raced for a bit on 953 stainless recently. FWIW:

    https://roadcyclinguk.com/gear/genes...-frameset.html

    Granted...they're the exception AFAIK.
  • 01-14-2019
    cxwrench
    Here's the deal. There aren't any major manufacturers making Ti frames and marketing them as their 'top of the line'. None. So none of the major brands would want to pay a pro team AND supply them w/ well over 100 frames if it's not something they're wanting to sell a ton of. There has to be a big time ROI to make the deal happen. The companies that do make Ti frames are small. They can't afford to produce a ton of frames, give them to a team, AND pay to play. Not gonna happen. All of the big names settled on carbon many years ago as the material they would use for their race bikes. Once everyone had the :idea: moment and understood how important aerodynamics are they knew that carbon was the only material that would enable them to make the shapes needed. Added bonus: it's very light.
    And as much as it will pain @waspinator there are actually real and very experienced engineers throughout the bicycle industry, many of them w/ doctoral degrees.
  • 01-14-2019
    Alaska Mike
    On a perfectly stiff bike and drivetrain (impossible), almost all of the energy put into a pedal stroke would translate into forward momentum. No energy would be dissipated into lateral movement of the frame.

    In the case of my BMC's and Cannondale's layup, the rear triangle would deform to the point that the wheel would be forced into the brake pad, thus reducing the power available for forward momentum. Brake pads don't absorb and then release power in a positive way, because we really wouldn't want them to. This wasn't a spring effect- it was a noodle effect. As the frame rebounded, it had to overcome the initial resistance of the brake pad and the inertia of the wheel. As the rear triangle had deformed, some of the energy was projected laterally instead of forward as the wheel straightened out. This was obviously less than optimal for handling and performance.
  • 01-14-2019
    aclinjury
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by cxwrench View Post
    Here's the deal. There aren't any major manufacturers making Ti frames and marketing them as their 'top of the line'. None. So none of the major brands would want to pay a pro team AND supply them w/ well over 100 frames if it's not something they're wanting to sell a ton of. There has to be a big time ROI to make the deal happen. The companies that do make Ti frames are small. They can't afford to produce a ton of frames, give them to a team, AND pay to play. Not gonna happen. All of the big names settled on carbon many years ago as the material they would use for their race bikes. Once everyone had the :idea: moment and understood how important aerodynamics are they knew that carbon was the only material that would enable them to make the shapes needed. Added bonus: it's very light.
    And as much as it will pain @waspinator there are actually real and very experienced engineers throughout the bicycle industry, many of them w/ doctoral degrees.

    very few engineers in the bicycle industry are doctorates. The industry can't afford to pay them.
  • 01-14-2019
    cxwrench
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Alaska Mike View Post
    On a perfectly stiff bike and drivetrain (impossible), almost all of the energy put into a pedal stroke would translate into forward momentum. No energy would be dissipated into lateral movement of the frame.

    In the case of my BMC's and Cannondale's layup, the rear triangle would deform to the point that the wheel would be forced into the brake pad, thus reducing the power available for forward momentum. Brake pads don't absorb and then release power in a positive way, because we really wouldn't want them to. This wasn't a spring effect- it was a noodle effect. As the frame rebounded, it had to overcome the initial resistance of the brake pad and the inertia of the wheel. As the rear triangle had deformed, some of the energy was projected laterally instead of forward as the wheel straightened out. This was obviously less than optimal for handling and performance.

    Remember Newton's third law? Every action has an equal and opposite reaction? If the frame flexes, it will flex back. Where does the energy go? Not into heat, so into the return flex of the frame.
  • 01-14-2019
    mfdemicco
    Whatever happened to inexpensive Russian and Chinese Ti frames? The Russians have a lot of experience with Ti from their defense industry.

    What as always struck me as odd about Ti is that you hardly see any Ti forks. You hear this and that excuse about that. I've always felt that if the material was so much better than the alternatives, you'd see forks made from it. Not to be and thus the myth of Ti being such a great material for bicycles come crashing down.
  • 01-14-2019
    Alaska Mike
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mfdemicco View Post
    Whatever happened to inexpensive Russian and Chinese Ti frames? The Russians have a lot of experience with Ti from their defense industry.

    I have a Russian titanium frame. The welds are as good as any I have seen, but the quality of the raw materials is a big unknown.

    There are a lot of companies (mostly boutique) outsourcing their ti manufacturing to Chinese and Russian companies. Why Cycles comes to mind. The quality of the product is often determined by the quality of the sourcing company's oversight of the entire process. Otherwise, the contractor can sub-contract out to other companies, leading to all sorts of mysteries in the supply chains. All titanium is not created equally, even among similar grades.

    So far, I've been very happy with my Russian frame. It's held up to TSA many times, which is something I can't say for several aluminum and carbon frames over the years. Other people may not have the same experience, as with any frame made of any material whose parentage is unclear.
    Quote:

    What as always struck me as odd about Ti is that you hardly see any Ti forks. You hear this and that excuse about that. I've always felt that if the material was so much better than the alternatives, you'd see forks made from it. Not to be and thus the myth of Ti being such a great material for bicycles come crashing down.
    Again, not the easiest or cheapest material to work with. When a company can source a quality carbon fork for $200, why would they want to bother making a titanium fork with similar performance characteristics for more money (think skilled labor man-hours)? Aesthetically, the metal fork is less popular today among the average buyer than the swoopy, aero-looking lines you can create with carbon.

    Again, all frame materials have their advantages and disadvantages. Ti is a great frame material in the hands of a true craftsman. A well-made titanium bike is a joy to ride, and some of us greatly prefer their looks over the latest carbon wonderbike. Yes, they can be built to perform at a very high level. Steve Tilford used to race ti exclusively, and did ok for an old man.
  • 01-14-2019
    Alaska Mike
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by cxwrench View Post
    Remember Newton's third law? Every action has an equal and opposite reaction? If the frame flexes, it will flex back. Where does the energy go? Not into heat, so into the return flex of the frame.

    Yes, but it depends on how the frame flexes under load- which comes back to how the carbon is laid down.

    If a frame deflects laterally, it will bounce back laterally, wasting some of the input energy intended for forward propulsion.
  • 01-15-2019
    tlg
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by aclinjury View Post
    very few engineers in the bicycle industry are doctorates. The industry can't afford to pay them.

    Really? I'd imagine every competitor in the aero game has a PhD or two.
    Heck, Specialized could afford to build their very own wind tunnel. Recruited Chris Yu, a PhD in the field of High Fidelity Flow Simulation

    Nathan Barry, one of Cannondaleís team of design engineers, is an aero specialist and has a background in aerodynamics, specializing in bicycles ó heís published papers and his PhD on how to analyse real world aero for bicycling .

    Canyon head of R&D is Dr. Michael Kaiser
  • 01-15-2019
    Coolhand
    FWIW- steel was better for low production craftsmen/artists, carbon fiber was better for aero, lightness, ride quality, fatigue life, ease of production scaling, and design flexibility, and Aluminum took over the low end. Ti didn't have much left. Ti is like Campy, a sub-optimal choice made because of what it is to the buyer. Ti isn't a logical choice, its an emotional one for the buyer.

    Also FWIW, in my opinion the Ti bikes I have owned were no better than the Steel bikes I owned, nor decidedly better than the CAAD5 I owned (but were way more expensive). The Ti bikes were better than the early carbon bikes I owned, and not nearly as good as the last two generations of carbon bikes I have owned.
  • 01-15-2019
    Jay Strongbow
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mfdemicco View Post
    That's if you buy that "tuning" really accomplishes anything but market speak. To me, a frame is supposed to be rigid and is a structure to enable the attachment of components in the proper locations. Tires and tire pressure has more effect than frame material. People say that steel rides better, Ti rides better, carbon fiber is too stiff; it's all BS.

    I moved everything from one frame to another, kept using the same PSI, so the only variable is the frame and I disagree strongly.
    I'd agree it didn't necessarily have anything to do with what the frames were made of but the implication that frame doesn't matter at all I find absurd.
  • 01-15-2019
    Lombard
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by cxwrench View Post
    Wow...this is roughly the equivalent of bring a wooden spoon to a gunfight.

    Or this:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNh51G84WZY

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Waspinator View Post
    Of course. Thatís how it works. Someone making a claim (or accepting a claim) should support that claim with research.



    Pot meet kettle.

    Weren't you the guy who claimed that quick release was vastly superior to thru-axle for disc brake bikes? And IIRC, you also claimed that post mount was superior to flat mount.

    Hello Waspinator!
  • 01-15-2019
    taodemon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Jay Strongbow View Post
    I moved everything from one frame to another, kept using the same PSI, so the only variable is the frame and I disagree strongly.
    I'd agree it didn't necessarily have anything to do with what the frames were made of but the implication that frame doesn't matter at all I find absurd.

    I have been using the same components/wheels with the last 3 carbon frames I have had (an original venge, tarmac sl5 and now sl6) and the difference in how they ride/feel is noticeably different despite all 3 having very similar geometry so the idea that the frame doesn't matter seems pretty silly to me too.
  • 01-15-2019
    Lombard
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by taodemon View Post
    I have been using the same components/wheels with the last 3 carbon frames I have had (an original venge, tarmac sl5 and now sl6) and the difference in how they ride/feel is noticeably different despite all 3 having very similar geometry so the idea that the frame doesn't matter seems pretty silly to me too.

    So are you saying that all three of these bikes have exactly the same brand and make of tires, the same size tires inflated to exactly the same pressure?

    Tires will make the biggest difference in ride quality. Everything else is comparatively minuscule.
  • 01-15-2019
    mfdemicco
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Jay Strongbow View Post
    I moved everything from one frame to another, kept using the same PSI, so the only variable is the frame and I disagree strongly.
    I'd agree it didn't necessarily have anything to do with what the frames were made of but the implication that frame doesn't matter at all I find absurd.

    Do both frames have the same geometry? If not, it's not a fair comparison.

    By your second paragraph, you are agreeing with me. That is what I was saying.
  • 01-15-2019
    Jay Strongbow
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mfdemicco View Post
    Do both frames have the same geometry? If not, it's not a fair comparison.
    By your second paragraph, you are agreeing with me. That is what I was saying.

    Slightly different but resulting in identical fit. Geometry was close enough to duplicate the fit exactly with one less spacer and about half a cm less set back.

    And no, I am not agreeing with this: "That's if you buy that "tuning" really accomplishes anything but market speak. To me, a frame is supposed to be rigid and is a structure to enable the attachment of components in the proper locations."

    I would agree with this: "People say that steel rides better, Ti rides better, carbon fiber is too stiff; it's all BS."
  • 01-15-2019
    Waspinator
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by asgelle View Post
    It doesnít help to use big words when you donít know what they mean.

    I know exactly what these terms mean.

    Elastic modulus refers to a materialís ability to flex elastically. The upper limit of elastic modulus is yield strength, at which the material flexes plastically (ie it doesnít return to its original shape). So, bend a bar of metal less than to the point that it would bend permanently, and itíll flex back.

    Metals like Ti and steel typically can flex below this point an unlimited number of times. Aluminum cannot.
  • 01-15-2019
    Waspinator
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by asgelle View Post
    It doesnít help to use big words when you donít know what they mean.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by OldChipper View Post
    Boeing, Airbus, etc.? You mean the companies whose latest/greatest plane design incorporate copious amounts of carbon fiber composites???


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

    Precisely. Did it ever cross your mind that they chose composites because titanium would be too expensive?
  • 01-15-2019
    Waspinator
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by asgelle View Post
    It doesnít help to use big words when you donít know what they mean.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Notvintage View Post
    Young's modulus of Toray T700S (common in road bikes) is 230 Gpa, and garden variety Ti-6AL-4V is around 115 Gpa. Cooked pasta noodle to uncooked respectively.

    Tensile strength and modulus of elasticity are not the same thing. They may be related - one may affect the other - but they are not the same characteristic of a material. Whatís more, you cannot s
  • 01-15-2019
    Waspinator
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by asgelle View Post
    It doesnít help to use big words when you donít know what they mean.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Notvintage View Post
    Young's modulus of Toray T700S (common in road bikes) is 230 Gpa, and garden variety Ti-6AL-4V is around 115 Gpa. Cooked pasta noodle to uncooked respectively.

    Tensile strength and modulus of elasticity are not the same thing. They may be related - one may affect the other - but they are not the same characteristic of a material. Whatís more, you cannot simply look at the individual properties of a material in its unbuilt form and extrapolate it into an estimation of the properties of the product itís being used to build. Steel is a fat ďstifferĒ metal than aluminum, yet steel frames are known to flex more (because of how they must be built up).
  • 01-15-2019
    tlg
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Waspinator View Post
    Precisely. Did it ever cross your mind that they chose composites because titanium would be too expensive?

    lmao. No that is NOT why they chose composites. Give it up! Strength to Weight is a real thing.

    The Boeing Dreamliner airframe is nearly half carbon fiber reinforced plastic and other composites. Reducing weight by 20 percent compared to more conventional designs.

    Cost of the plane is a small factor. Cost of fuel is significantly larger factor. Airlines would gladly pay more for a plane made from titanium if it was lighter and saved fuel costs over 20 years.

    BOEING UPS THE ANTE WITH COMPOSITE-LOADED 787-10 DREAMLINER
    So, what is it about the 787-10 that makes the plane so attractive? Drastic improvements in fuel mileage and emissions made possible by a full range of composites that make up entire sections of the plane, including the wings and fuselage.

    IT'S ALL ABOUT THE WEIGHT
    When the Boeing 747 was first introduced in 1970, it was believed that the company had reached the absolute limit in size and weight.

    Engineers have to look at a number of factors when designing a new airplane. First is the total weight of the aircraft, including the aircraft itself along with passengers and cargo. Aerodynamic principles dictate that in order to lift a certain amount of weight off the ground, a plane's wing span has to be commensurate. The more weight you add, the bigger the wings have to be.

    COMPOSITE MATERIALS ARE THE ANSWER
    So, how did we get from the '70s-era 747 to the modern 787-10? By taking advantage of composite materials. Things like fiber composite panels offer superior strength and rigidity without excess weight. In fact, everything from carbon fiber tubing to fabricated sheets and panels offer the strength and rigidity needed for airframe construction but at a much lower cost in terms of weight.

    The 787-10 can seat 330 passengers and fly more than 6,000 nautical miles because of the advantages of composite materials. It is a 224-foot aircraft with a wingspan of just under 200 feet, so every major airport in the world can accommodate it. Its main advantage is fuel savings.

    By drastically reducing fuel consumption without sacrificing seating capacity, Boeing has created an aircraft that generates higher revenues per seat. In the ultra-competitive world of commercial airlines, this is everything.
  • 01-15-2019
    Waspinator
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by asgelle View Post
    It doesnít help to use big words when you donít know what they mean.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by cxwrench View Post
    there are actually real and very experienced engineers throughout the bicycle industry, many of them w/ doctoral degrees.

    Yeah. Sure there are.

    I mean, why not? Itís every newly-graduated engineering PhDís dream to go design bicycles. What could be more enticing than that?
  • 01-15-2019
    Waspinator
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by asgelle View Post
    It doesnít help to use big words when you donít know what they mean.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by cxwrench View Post
    Remember Newton's third law? Every action has an equal and opposite reaction? If the frame flexes, it will flex back. Where does the energy go? Not into heat, so into the return flex of the frame.

    Ummm....

    Iím afraid that you misunderstood Newtonís third law.

    The ďequal and oppositeĒ force is simultaneous - eg when you push against a wall, the wall simultaneously pushes against you. Thatís the idea.

    A bike frame flexing and rebounding back is not an example of Newtonís third law.

    That being said, work (in Joules) imparted unto the frame to bend it is more than the work. (in Joules) carried out by the frame flexing back. The loss of energy (ie Joules) is to heat.
  • 01-15-2019
    Waspinator
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by asgelle View Post
    It doesnít help to use big words when you donít know what they mean.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tlg View Post
    lmao. No that is NOT why they chose composites. Give it up! Strength to Weight is a real thing.

    The Boeing Dreamliner airframe is nearly half carbon fiber reinforced plastic and other composites. Reducing weight by 20 percent compared to more conventional designs.

    Cost of the plane is a small factor. Cost of fuel is significantly larger factor. Airlines would gladly pay more for a plane made from titanium if it was lighter and saved fuel costs over 20 years.

    BOEING UPS THE ANTE WITH COMPOSITE-LOADED 787-10 DREAMLINER
    So, what is it about the 787-10 that makes the plane so attractive? Drastic improvements in fuel mileage and emissions made possible by a full range of composites that make up entire sections of the plane, including the wings and fuselage.

    IT'S ALL ABOUT THE WEIGHT
    When the Boeing 747 was first introduced in 1970, it was believed that the company had reached the absolute limit in size and weight.

    Engineers have to look at a number of factors when designing a new airplane. First is the total weight of the aircraft, including the aircraft itself along with passengers and cargo. Aerodynamic principles dictate that in order to lift a certain amount of weight off the ground, a plane's wing span has to be commensurate. The more weight you add, the bigger the wings have to be.

    COMPOSITE MATERIALS ARE THE ANSWER
    So, how did we get from the '70s-era 747 to the modern 787-10? By taking advantage of composite materials. Things like fiber composite panels offer superior strength and rigidity without excess weight. In fact, everything from carbon fiber tubing to fabricated sheets and panels offer the strength and rigidity needed for airframe construction but at a much lower cost in terms of weight.

    The 787-10 can seat 330 passengers and fly more than 6,000 nautical miles because of the advantages of composite materials. It is a 224-foot aircraft with a wingspan of just under 200 feet, so every major airport in the world can accommodate it. Its main advantage is fuel savings.

    By drastically reducing fuel consumption without sacrificing seating capacity, Boeing has created an aircraft that generates higher revenues per seat. In the ultra-competitive world of commercial airlines, this is everything.

    Dude... did you even read what you quoted? This ar
  • 01-15-2019
    tlg
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Waspinator View Post
    Dude... did you even read what you quoted? This ar

    Dude.... yea. Did you?
    Do you still not understand why they chose composites over titanium?
  • 01-15-2019
    Waspinator
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by asgelle View Post
    It doesnít help to use big words when you donít know what they mean.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tlg View Post
    lmao. No that is NOT why they chose composites. Give it up! Strength to Weight is a real thing.

    The Boeing Dreamliner airframe is nearly half carbon fiber reinforced plastic and other composites. Reducing weight by 20 percent compared to more conventional designs.

    Cost of the plane is a small factor. Cost of fuel is significantly larger factor. Airlines would gladly pay more for a plane made from titanium if it was lighter and saved fuel costs over 20 years.

    BOEING UPS THE ANTE WITH COMPOSITE-LOADED 787-10 DREAMLINER
    So, what is it about the 787-10 that makes the plane so attractive? Drastic improvements in fuel mileage and emissions made possible by a full range of composites that make up entire sections of the plane, including the wings and fuselage.

    IT'S ALL ABOUT THE WEIGHT
    When the Boeing 747 was first introduced in 1970, it was believed that the company had reached the absolute limit in size and weight.

    Engineers have to look at a number of factors when designing a new airplane. First is the total weight of the aircraft, including the aircraft itself along with passengers and cargo. Aerodynamic principles dictate that in order to lift a certain amount of weight off the ground, a plane's wing span has to be commensurate. The more weight you add, the bigger the wings have to be.

    COMPOSITE MATERIALS ARE THE ANSWER
    So, how did we get from the '70s-era 747 to the modern 787-10? By taking advantage of composite materials. Things like fiber composite panels offer superior strength and rigidity without excess weight. In fact, everything from carbon fiber tubing to fabricated sheets and panels offer the strength and rigidity needed for airframe construction but at a much lower cost in terms of weight.

    The 787-10 can seat 330 passengers and fly more than 6,000 nautical miles because of the advantages of composite materials. It is a 224-foot aircraft with a wingspan of just under 200 feet, so every major airport in the world can accommodate it. Its main advantage is fuel savings.

    By drastically reducing fuel consumption without sacrificing seating capacity, Boeing has created an aircraft that generates higher revenues per seat. In the ultra-competitive world of commercial airlines, this is everything.

    A couple comments in response:

    1. First, just because Boeing can take advantage of compositeís benefits doesnít mean bicycle companies can. Boeing is a large company that hires PhDs galore to study every last aspect of every airplane. Hell, my father had a PhD in mechanical engineering (his thesis was on acoustics) and Boeing hired him to study the acoustics in airplanes. Your average schmo designing bike frames is not playing anywhere even remotely near Boeingís playing field.

    2. Boeing has access to materials and manufacturing techniques and quality control techniques that no bicycle company has, or would be willing to even attempt to acquire.

    3. This quote from Boeing doesnít say anything about cost. Remember the objective of the 787 Dreamliner: the plane was designed to be a plane that would be built in large quantities, traveling to Ďsmallerí destinations as opposed to fewer planes flying to fewer and larger hubs (which is what Airbus bet on when they produced the A380) . Hence, using lower-cost materials was paramount to Boeing and the Dreamliner. That means Ti was out.
  • 01-15-2019
    tlg
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Waspinator View Post
    A couple comments in response:

    1. First, just because Boeing can take advantage of compositeís benefits doesnít mean bicycle companies can.

    You seriously don't think bicycle companies aren't taking advantage of composites? :shocked:



    Quote:

    3. This quote from Boeing doesnít say anything about cost. Remember the objective of the 787 Dreamliner: the plane was designed to be a plane that would be built in large quantities, traveling to Ďsmallerí destinations as opposed to fewer planes flying to fewer and larger hubs (which is what Airbus bet on when they produced the A380) . Hence, using lower-cost materials was paramount to Boeing and the Dreamliner. That means Ti was out.
    Read it again.
    IT'S ALL ABOUT THE WEIGHT
    COMPOSITE MATERIALS ARE THE ANSWER

    It doesn't say anything about costs because that wasn't the objective. Contrary to what you made up.
    "In response to the preferences of airlines around the world, Boeing Commercial Airplanes' new airplane is the Boeing 787 Dreamliner, a super-efficient airplane. The original customer objectives set for the 787 program in 2002 were for a more-efficient airplane that had the seating capacity of a 767 and the range and speed of a 777 or 747."

    Yes it's about costs. Fuel costs. Achieved by the superior strength to weight ratio of composts.
  • 01-15-2019
    den bakker
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by cxwrench View Post
    Wow...this is roughly the equivalent of bring a wooden spoon to a gunfight. You should quit while you're not light years behind. Just give up on trying to convince anyone of anything at all in this thread. Read what has been posted...absorb it...and just stop.

    some people when offered a rope really just want there to be a shovel at the end so they can dig faster.
  • 01-15-2019
    Waspinator
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by asgelle View Post
    It doesnít help to use big words when you donít know what they mean.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tlg View Post
    You seriously don't think bicycle companies aren't taking advantage of composites? :shocked:



    Read it again.
    IT'S ALL ABOUT THE WEIGHT
    COMPOSITE MATERIALS ARE THE ANSWER

    It doesn't say anything about costs because that wasn't the objective. Contrary to what you made up.
    "In response to the preferences of airlines around the world, Boeing Commercial Airplanes' new airplane is the Boeing 787 Dreamliner, a super-efficient airplane. The original customer objectives set for the 787 program in 2002 were for a more-efficient airplane that had the seating capacity of a 767 and the range and speed of a 777 or 747."

    Yes it's about costs. Fuel costs. Achieved by the superior strength to weight ratio of composts.

    Boeing makes money by selling airplanes for more than it costs to make them.

    You think cost wasnít a consideration for Boeing? Seriously?
  • 01-15-2019
    craiger_ny
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Waspinator View Post
    Yeah. Sure there are.

    I mean, why not? Itís every newly-graduated engineering PhDís dream to go design bicycles. What could be more enticing than that?

    A person may not entirely know where their career will take them. We work with a supplier of ours that has a number of folks on hand with PhDs. They make gears, that's all they make. I doubt those folks were chomping at the bit to get that degree so they could enter the exciting world of designing and manufacturing gears but rather it was likely something that they incrementally worked their way into as both their interests and opportunities grew for them.

    There was never a day that I pictured myself a designer of custom gages and programmer of various types of measuring equipment but it's where I have come to find myself.
  • 01-15-2019
    Lombard
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by den bakker View Post
    some people when offered a rope really just want there to be a shovel at the end so they can dig faster.

    You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to den bakker again.
  • 01-15-2019
    tlg
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Waspinator View Post
    Boeing makes money by selling airplanes for more than it costs to make them.

    You think cost wasnít a consideration for Boeing? Seriously?

    It would really help the conversation if you actually read.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tlg View Post
    lmao. No that is NOT why they chose composites. Give it up! Strength to Weight is a real thing.

    The Boeing Dreamliner airframe is nearly half carbon fiber reinforced plastic and other composites. Reducing weight by 20 percent compared to more conventional designs.

    Cost of the plane is a small factor. Cost of fuel is significantly larger factor.

    This is really basic stuff.

    The original customer objectives set for the 787 program in 2002 were for a more-efficient airplane Not the cost of the plane. Airlines will pay whatever Boeing charged for the plane for significant fuel savings.


    So you still believe the strength/stiffness vs weight argument has been scientifically proven? Seriously?
  • 01-15-2019
    Waspinator
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by asgelle View Post
    It doesnít help to use big words when you donít know what they mean.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tlg View Post
    It would really help the conversation if you actually read.

    This is really basic stuff.

    The original customer objectives set for the 787 program in 2002 were for a more-efficient airplane Not the cost of the plane. Airlines will pay whatever Boeing charged for the plane for significant fuel savings.


    So you still believe the strength/stiffness vs weight argument has been scientifically proven? Seriously?

    Fuel economy is only relevant to Boeing inasmuch as it is a selling feature for the plane.

    But for Boeing itself, they needed to accomplish this in a way that was as inexpensive as possible. It is entirely possible that CF was superior in this way alone.
  • 01-15-2019
    Marc
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tlg View Post
    It would really help the conversation if you actually read.

    This is really basic stuff.

    The original customer objectives set for the 787 program in 2002 were for a more-efficient airplane Not the cost of the plane. Airlines will pay whatever Boeing charged for the plane for significant fuel savings.


    So you still believe the strength/stiffness vs weight argument has been scientifically proven? Seriously?

    I mean we all know how the market is saturated with titanium sub-1kg bike frames. I mean geeze, you hear about sub-800gram titanium frames all the time for road use.
  • 01-15-2019
    tlg
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Waspinator View Post
    Fuel economy is only relevant to Boeing inasmuch as it is a selling feature for the plane.

    Well duh. That's why that was their original objective. To sell planes. :rolleyes:


    So you still believe the strength/stiffness vs weight argument has been scientifically proven? Seriously?
  • 01-15-2019
    tlg
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    I mean we all know how the market is saturated with titanium sub-1kg bike frames. I mean geeze, you hear about sub-800gram titanium frames all the time for road use.

    lol I was just looking into that. I'm not up to speed on weights of Ti frames so was doing some research. Lightest I could find was Litespeed T1sl @ 1050g.
    An …monda SLR 9 frame weighs 640 grams.

    Surely it has nothing to do with strength to weight ratio.
  • 01-15-2019
    Waspinator
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by asgelle View Post
    It doesnít help to use big words when you donít know what they mean.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tlg View Post
    lol I was just looking into that. I'm not up to speed on weights of Ti frames so was doing some research. Lightest I could find was Litespeed T1sl @ 1050g.
    An …monda SLR 9 frame weighs 640 grams.

    Surely it has nothing to do with strength to weight ratio.

    If youíll read my original post, youíll note that I mentioned the UCI weight limit, and that a titanium bike can easily be built to weigh less than this limit.

    Moreover, you have to realize that there hasnít been a lot of development with regard to making metal frames, because all the bike industry really knows how to do with metals is make it into straight tubes, cut it, weld it, and polish it, and little else.
  • 01-15-2019
    tlg
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Waspinator View Post
    If youíll read my original post, youíll note that I mentioned the UCI weight limit, and that a titanium bike can easily be built to weigh less than this limit.

    So what? The UCI weight limit has nothing to do with strength to weight ratio.

    Quote:

    Moreover, you have to realize that there hasnít been a lot of development with regard to making metal frames, because all the bike industry really knows how to do with metals is make it into straight tubes, cut it, weld it, and polish it, and little else.
    lol You haven't heard of hydroforming? Never seen a CAAD12? :rolleyes:


    So you still believe the strength/stiffness vs weight argument hasn't been scientifically proven? Seriously?
  • 01-15-2019
    den bakker
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Waspinator View Post
    I

    Moreover, you have to realize that there hasnít been a lot of development with regard to making metal frames, because all the bike industry really knows how to do with metals is make it into straight tubes, cut it, weld it, and polish it, and little else.

    https://cdn3.bigcommerce.com/s-1h8i1...0.1280.JPG?c=2
  • 01-15-2019
    cxwrench
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Waspinator View Post
    If youíll read my original post, youíll note that I mentioned the UCI weight limit, and that a titanium bike can easily be built to weigh less than this limit.

    Moreover, you have to realize that there hasnít been a lot of development with regard to making metal frames, because all the bike industry really knows how to do with metals is make it into straight tubes, cut it, weld it, and polish it, and little else.

    Looked at your own bike lately? Not exactly straight, round tubes.
  • 01-15-2019
    Marc
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Waspinator View Post
    If youíll read my original post, youíll note that I mentioned the UCI weight limit, and that a titanium bike can easily be built to weigh less than this limit.

    Moreover, you have to realize that there hasnít been a lot of development with regard to making metal frames, because all the bike industry really knows how to do with metals is make it into straight tubes, cut it, weld it, and polish it, and little else.


    Just stop posting about this already...you're only proving how little you know by arguing with those who know more than you.
  • 01-15-2019
    taodemon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Lombard View Post
    So are you saying that all three of these bikes have exactly the same brand and make of tires, the same size tires inflated to exactly the same pressure?

    Tires will make the biggest difference in ride quality. Everything else is comparatively minuscule.

    I've been using the same HED jet 5 wheels with conti gp4000ii pretty much the whole time for the past 5 years and I always inflate my tires to the same pressure. Occasionally I would pick up an Sworks turbo from the bike store when I ran out of contis before my next online order arrived. The turbos never lasted me long so I would be back on conti's in a month or two.

    14k miles on the venge, 6k on the sl5, 2.3k so far on the sl6 from july of 2018. I've just moved all the components/wheels to each new frame. The biggest difference in ride quality being the SL5 to SL6. The original venge had pretty much identical geometry to the sl5 and the sl6 is fairly close to the sl5 as well in this regard.
  • 01-15-2019
    velodog
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Waspinator View Post
    If youíll read my original post, youíll note that I mentioned the UCI weight limit, and that a titanium bike can easily be built to weigh less than this limit.

    Moreover, you have to realize that there hasnít been a lot of development with regard to making metal frames, because all the bike industry really knows how to do with metals is make it into straight tubes, cut it, weld it, and polish it, and little else.

    Did you just wake from a 30yr nap?
  • 01-15-2019
    cxwrench
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    Just stop posting about this already...you're only proving how little you know by arguing with those who know more than you.

    No, it's all of us that are wrong. Especially those of us that have been in the industry for over 20 years and worked for teams for 15 years. We know nothing about why certain materials are used or not, and have no clue about the level of education in the industry. It might be fun if Waspy let us know what he does for a living and we can all second guess the **** outta him.
  • 01-15-2019
    Lombard
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by cxwrench View Post
    No, it's all of us that are wrong. Especially those of us that have been in the industry for over 20 years and worked for teams for 15 years. We know nothing about why certain materials are used or not, and have no clue about the level of education in the industry. It might be fun if Waspy let us know what he does for a living and we can all second guess the **** outta him.

    He did mention that his dad had a PhD, but never divulged his own education or profession. Hmmmm.
  • 01-15-2019
    tlg
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by cxwrench View Post
    It might be fun if Waspy let us know what he does for a living and we can all second guess the **** outta him.

    I'm sure he's scouring the interwebs looking for something to come back and "school us" that the strength/stiffness vs weight argument hasn't been scientifically proven.
  • 01-15-2019
    cxwrench
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tlg View Post
    I'm sure he's scouring the interwebs looking for something to come back and "school us" that the strength/stiffness vs weight argument hasn't been scientifically proven.

    I'm sure you're right!