• 01-15-2019
    Finx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Coolhand View Post
    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.

    All Ti bikes are not created equal. I have no idea what (Ti bike) you are comparing here in terms of bike type (racing, touring, MTB, etc..), design and engineering, manufacturing, etc...
  • 01-15-2019
    exracer
    Originally Posted by Waspinator

    "If you’ll read my original post, you’ll 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 hasn’t 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. "


    I have this wild idea, yo waspinator, instead of going back and forth with us; why don't you shoot an email to Ernesto or Giovanni or Mr. Sinyard and ask them the very same question. Get the answer directly from the horse's mouth. Errrr so to speak. And when they give you an answer you don't like and tell you that "well you can start your own bike company and you can start building titanium frames for the Pro Peloton, good luck" you wont hold it against them will you?

    You can also impress Ernesto and Giovanni by telling them what a couple of fools they were for using short round (for the most part) tubing to build bikes with all those years.
  • 01-15-2019
    PBL450
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Alaska Mike View Post
    From a performance standpoint, Ti can be made to perform really well. Steel can too, as can aluminum. You can build any of these materials into a very respectable race bike. That said, each has its own set of trade-offs when you're seeking performance, Maybe it's weight. Maybe it's comfort. Maybe it's cost.

    At this moment, carbon is the most infinitely tune-able material for frame design. It's also cheaper to experiment with different layups within an existing mold to achieve a desired result that can be replicated time after time. Metal bikes rely much more heavily on the skill and knowledge of the builder (machinist, welder...) to ensure a predictable outcome.

    My point is not detracting from Ti being a capable material for a race frame. It is, rather, that if it, in the hands of the very finest metallurgists the world has ever known, had a performance advantage, it would be being exploited. Same for Al or freaking magnesium for example... It is a failure from a racing perspective. Not because of the cost or magical abilities required of the welders, but because it just isn’t good enough to warrant the effort. “Some dude raced on it” is far from a rave. It is the definition of damned by faint praise. If you are interested in elite race materials in your hobby/amateur bike, Ti is a wholesale failure. If you love it, good for you, I’m not concerned with our use. It isn’t raced because it sucks.
  • 01-16-2019
    Waspinator
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tlg View Post
    So what? The UCI weight limit has nothing to do with strength to weight ratio.

    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?

    I am fully aware of hydroforming tubes. But the frame is still a collection of tubes welded together.... much like the old carbon fiber bikes that consisted of carbon fiber tubes bonded into metal lugs. There are other ways to make metal structures lighter and stronger. While metal doesn’t have the directional strength they carbon fiber does, it can be combined in other ways than welding to improve strength. But it requires technology and expense the bike industry doesn’t have. It’s somply easier for them to build CF frames because the technique is simple.

    But again, there is a UCI weight limit that a bike of any material can meet, while delivering a perfectly stiff ride.
  • 01-16-2019
    Waspinator
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by cxwrench View Post
    Looked at your own bike lately? Not exactly straight, round tubes.

    The tubes are straight. And they’re welded. Litespeed was able to make a 6/4 tapered top tube by rolling and welding a sheet of metal, but in the end, the frame is just welded tubes.

    Trek, it seems, has made some fancy-shaped aluminum tubes. Alas, these frames too are welded tubes.
  • 01-16-2019
    tlg
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Waspinator View Post
    But again, there is a UCI weight limit that a bike of any material can meet, while delivering a perfectly stiff ride.

    Of course the UCI weight limit has nothing to do with the strength to weight ratio. They can make larger aero shaped frame designs for less weight. And apply the weight saved to other areas like handlebars.


    How many times must I ask? So you still believe the strength/stiffness vs weight argument hasn't been scientifically proven?
  • 01-16-2019
    Waspinator
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Lombard View Post
    He did mention that his dad had a PhD, but never divulged his own education or profession. Hmmmm.

    I’m a doctor (eg physician). And I’ve taken courses aplenty in physics and materials science along the way. And I read. A lot.
  • 01-16-2019
    tlg
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Waspinator View Post
    And I’ve taken courses aplenty in physics and materials science along the way. And I read. A lot.

    With all those courses and reading.... you still believe the strength/stiffness vs weight argument hasn't been scientifically proven? :skep:
  • 01-16-2019
    Waspinator
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tlg View Post
    With all those courses and reading.... you still believe the strength/stiffness vs weight argument hasn't been scientifically proven? :skep:

    As an absolute? No. Within the limitations of the bike industry’s abilities. Yes.

    I think there is a lot left to discover about the ability of metals and more manufacturing techniques to develop, but the bike industry doesn’t have the wallet or the education for it. Hopefully technology will trickle down from bigger industries.

    But once again, and for the umpteenth time: an aluminum or Ti frame can be built light and stiff enough and even dip below the UCI limit.
  • 01-16-2019
    tlg
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Waspinator View Post
    As an absolute? No. Within the limitations of the bike industry’s abilities. Yes.

    So you clearly don't understand what strength to weight ratio is. It's an absolute. Period.

    Quote:

    But once again, and for the umpteenth time: an aluminum or Ti frame can be built light and stiff enough and even dip below the UCI limit.
    And for the umpteenth time you could never build an aerodynamic Ti frame and meet the UCI limit. No one will ever ride a Ti bike in the pro peloton. Sorry. You're so hung up on the UCI limit.... which is irrelevant. Weight is pretty much irrelevant in the pro peloton. Some of them are riding bikes over the UCI limit because they know aerodynamics trumps weight. Heck, a Madone SLR 9 weights a portly 16lbs and the disc version is a hefty 17lbs. Geee why would they choose a 16-17lb bike over a svelte 15lb Ti bike? :rolleyes:
  • 01-16-2019
    Waspinator
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tlg View Post
    So you clearly don't understand what strength to weight ratio is. It's an absolute. Period.

    And for the umpteenth time you could never build an aerodynamic Ti frame and meet the UCI limit. No one will ever ride a Ti bike in the pro peloton. Sorry. You're so hung up on the UCI limit.... which is irrelevant. Weight is pretty much irrelevant in the pro peloton. Some of them are riding bikes over the UCI limit because they know aerodynamics trumps weight. Heck, a Madone SLR 9 weights a portly 16lbs and the disc version is a hefty 17lbs. Geee why would they choose a 16-17lb bike over a svelte 15lb Ti bike? :rolleyes:

    I already told you, the aerodynamic argument is a bunch of BS. With time trial bikes it makes a difference, but for your regular racing bike, the difference is negligible if any.

    Want proof?

    Manufacturers are still making top-end road bikes that aren’t designed to be “aero”.

    Why do pro riders ride bikes heavier than the UCI limit? Sponsorship.
  • 01-16-2019
    MaxKatt
    Okay, with a chance to be pioneer, I think I'll go Pro this year and ride Titanium. Will report back with findings.

    Please find me on KickStarter under TiGuyPodiumHigh (Team TGPH) Thanks in advance for your support.
  • 01-16-2019
    tlg
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Waspinator View Post
    I already told you, the aerodynamic argument is a bunch of BS. With time trial bikes it makes a difference, but for your regular racing bike, the difference is negligible if any.

    Ahhh because you said so? lmao

    Quote:

    Want proof?

    Manufacturers are still making top-end road bikes that aren’t designed to be “aero”.

    Why do pro riders ride bikes heavier than the UCI limit? Sponsorship.
    OMG the irony of those two statements. Now that's just silly. Uhhh yea, manufacturers are making top end bikes that aren't aero. And Pro's ride them. Like the Emonda... which weighs under 14lbs.

    So please enlighten us!... why would a Pro choose a 17lb Madone over an 14lb Emonda? (Hint... it's not sponsorship. They're sponsored to ride both. )
  • 01-16-2019
    Waspinator
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tlg View Post
    So you clearly don't understand what strength to weight ratio is. It's an absolute. Period.

    And for the umpteenth time you could never build an aerodynamic Ti frame and meet the UCI limit. No one will ever ride a Ti bike in the pro peloton. Sorry. You're so hung up on the UCI limit.... which is irrelevant. Weight is pretty much irrelevant in the pro peloton. Some of them are riding bikes over the UCI limit because they know aerodynamics trumps weight. Heck, a Madone SLR 9 weights a portly 16lbs and the disc version is a hefty 17lbs. Geee why would they choose a 16-17lb bike over a svelte 15lb Ti bike? :rolleyes:

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tlg View Post
    Ahhh because you said so? lmao

    OMG the irony of those two statements. Now that's just silly. Uhhh yea, manufacturers are making top end bikes that aren't aero. And Pro's ride them. Like the Emonda... which weighs under 14lbs.

    So please enlighten us!... why would a Pro choose a 17lb Madone over an 14lb Emonda? (Hint... it's not sponsorship. They're sponsored to ride both. )

    The 14lb Emonda isn’t allowed in UCI sanctioned races, if I’m not mistaken.

    So that leaves the Madone. And riders will pretty much ride what the team is supplied. Business trumps everything. Including winning.
  • 01-16-2019
    taodemon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Waspinator View Post
    I already told you, the aerodynamic argument is a bunch of BS. With time trial bikes it makes a difference, but for your regular racing bike, the difference is negligible if any.

    Want proof?

    Manufacturers are still making top-end road bikes that aren’t designed to be “aero”.

    Why do pro riders ride bikes heavier than the UCI limit? Sponsorship.

    Why would the pros use a heavier (above uci limit) aero bike at all if they didn't make a difference and they could just use a light weight (at uci limit) bike of the same sponsorship if aero was negligible? The science of aero has been proven and tested repeatedly including independent PHD testers. I would be afraid to be one of your patients given how dense you are about things repeatedly tested and proven. Do you still feel lobotomies are an effective treatment to mental disorders? Maybe you should look into getting one done to yourself as you might see some improvement.:mad2:

    You don't even need to be a phd to understand that if something wasn't effective and in fact determental by being heavier it wouldn't be used by pros. I can't imagine Sagan waking up and saying, "today I don't feel like winning so I'll use the aero bike". :rolleyes:

    Sky only rides aero bikes... they must be doing something wrong.
  • 01-16-2019
    tlg
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Waspinator View Post
    The 14lb Emonda isn’t allowed in UCI sanctioned races, if I’m not mistaken.

    So that leaves the Madone. And riders will pretty much ride what the team is supplied. Business trumps everything. Including winning.

    :mad2: Sheesh you really don't know how the Pro's work. They add weight to meet the limit. The Emonda is absolutely a bike Pros are sponsored to ride.

    Here's Contador's
    http://www.trichile.cl/sites/default...da_01_2017.png


    Now back to the question.
    So please enlighten us!... why would a Pro choose a significantly heavier Madone over an Emonda? (Hint... it's not sponsorship. They're sponsored to ride both. )
  • 01-16-2019
    asgelle
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by taodemon View Post
    You don't even need to be a phd to understand that if something wasn't effective and in fact determental by being heavier it wouldn't be used by pros. I can't imagine Sagan waking up and saying, "today I don't feel like winning so I'll use the aero bike".

    To be fair, pros are pros because of their enormous aerobic engine, not because of their expertise in science or engineering. Read some of Josh Portner or Damon Rinard's stories about how some pros rejected equipment or position improvements even in the face of overwhelming evidence.
  • 01-16-2019
    Waspinator
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tlg View Post
    So you clearly don't understand what strength to weight ratio is. It's an absolute. Period.

    And for the umpteenth time you could never build an aerodynamic Ti frame and meet the UCI limit. No one will ever ride a Ti bike in the pro peloton. Sorry. You're so hung up on the UCI limit.... which is irrelevant. Weight is pretty much irrelevant in the pro peloton. Some of them are riding bikes over the UCI limit because they know aerodynamics trumps weight. Heck, a Madone SLR 9 weights a portly 16lbs and the disc version is a hefty 17lbs. Geee why would they choose a 16-17lb bike over a svelte 15lb Ti bike? :rolleyes:

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tlg View Post
    :mad2: Sheesh you really don't know how the Pro's work. They add weight to meet the limit. The Emonda is absolutely a bike Pros are sponsored to ride.

    Here's Contador's
    http://www.trichile.cl/sites/default...da_01_2017.png


    Now back to the question.
    So please enlighten us!... why would a Pro choose a significantly heavier Madone over an Emonda? (Hint... it's not sponsorship. They're sponsored to ride both. )

    I said “The 14lb Emonda” for a reason. I am indeed aware that they can add weight to make the bike UCI legal.

    You’re trying to get me to say aerodynamics, and even if that’s what they believe, they are mistaken.

    Show me a study demonstrating the significance of aerodynamics of the bicycle itself in anything but time trials. And I’m talking about the aerodynamics of the frame, and not the wheels, not the rider positioning, etc. Just the frame.

    Consider what you’re proposing here...

    That a bicycle frame, which has a fraction of the total surface area of the rider and an even smaller fraction of the cross-sectional area of the rider produces a significant amount of drag, and that nearly curving the tubes or adding angles to them, etc, can make a significant difference at speeds as low as 30-40mph.... keeping in mind that the wind resistance experienced by an object is proportional to the square of its velocity.
  • 01-16-2019
    taodemon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by asgelle View Post
    To be fair, pros are pros because of their enormous aerobic engine, not because of their expertise in science or engineering. Read some of Josh Portner or Damon Rinard's stories about how some pros rejected equipment or position improvements even in the face of overwhelming evidence.

    Yes, there will be waspinators in all walks of life but the teams with the most wins for 2018, 17, 16 etc all regularly used (or only used in the case of sky) aero bikes. If they were detrimental why would whole teams keep using them?
  • 01-16-2019
    asgelle
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by taodemon View Post
    If they were detrimental why would whole teams keep using them?

    3T Strada
  • 01-16-2019
    taodemon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by asgelle View Post
    3T Strada

    And how long did that last?:p
  • 01-16-2019
    Jay Strongbow
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by taodemon View Post
    one of your patients

    Please don't tell me that means what I think it means. In all seriousness I really hope not.
  • 01-16-2019
    tlg
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Waspinator View Post
    Show me a study demonstrating the significance of aerodynamics of the bicycle itself in anything but time trials. And I’m talking about the aerodynamics of the frame, and not the wheels, not the rider positioning, etc. Just the frame.

    Sheesh. It's been studied a bazillion times.

    Same rider. Same wheels. Aero bike vs Steel bike = 50sec over 40km. That's 1.25 seconds every km! Go ahead... keep beliving aerodynamics have no significance. :rolleyes:

    <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/XE_GKePa3CQ" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
  • 01-16-2019
    Finx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tlg View Post
    Sheesh. It's been studied a bazillion times.

    Same rider. Same wheels. Aero bike vs Steel bike = 50sec over 40km. That's 1.25 seconds every km! Go ahead... keep beliving aerodynamics have no significance. :rolleyes:

    <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/XE_GKePa3CQ" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>

    Less than a minute of gains over a 25 mile ride is significant?
  • 01-16-2019
    tlg
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Finx View Post
    Less than a minute of gains over a 25 mile ride is significant?

    For a Pro... in a breakaway... 1.25sec per 1km is priceless.
  • 01-16-2019
    cxwrench
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Finx View Post
    Less than a minute of gains over a 25 mile ride is significant?

    It only takes a fraction of a second to separate winner from loser so yes...I'd say it's significant.
  • 01-16-2019
    Finx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by cxwrench View Post
    It only takes a fraction of a second to separate winner from loser so yes...I'd say it's significant.

    Maybe, if you're competing in Cat1/2/Pro level racing.

    For most of us average joes, it's pretty much meaningless.
  • 01-16-2019
    taodemon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tlg View Post
    Sheesh. It's been studied a bazillion times.

    Same rider. Same wheels. Aero bike vs Steel bike = 50sec over 40km. That's 1.25 seconds every km! Go ahead... keep beliving aerodynamics have no significance. :rolleyes:

    And that is still the first gen venge, which isn't nearly as aero as any of the current generation aero bikes. Their current "lightweight" bike is just as aero as that so while there might be some companies still making top-end bikes that aren't aero that that isn't the trend. And in the case of Pinarello their top end is only available in aero.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Waspinator View Post
    Manufacturers are still making top-end road bikes that aren’t designed to be “aero”.

    Because they make their money from consumers which aren't limited by uci regulations that might have use for a super light weight bikes on terrain that the benefits of aero are outweight by weight (7+% climbs).

    Eventually I see most companies going the way of Pinarello with one bike that is both light weight and aero.
  • 01-16-2019
    tlg
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Finx View Post
    Maybe, if you're competing in Cat1/2/Pro level racing.

    For most of us average joes, it's pretty much meaningless.

    The Thread you're in is Why no titanium bikes in pro peloton?

    We're not talking about average joes.
  • 01-16-2019
    velodog
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Finx View Post
    Maybe, if you're competing in Cat1/2/Pro level racing.

    For most of us average joes, it's pretty much meaningless.

    That may or may not be the case, but plenty of "average joes" are spending their money on those numbers.
  • 01-16-2019
    asgelle
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Finx View Post
    Maybe, if you're competing in Cat1/2/Pro level racing.

    For most of us average joes, it's pretty much meaningless.

    Amateur racers devote hundreds of hours and hundreds of dollars to their racing. Who are you to say their results shouldn't matter to them.

    The point isn't that the difference should matter to everyone. The point is that the difference is measurable and is very significant to many.
  • 01-16-2019
    velodog
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tlg View Post
    The Thread you're in is Why no titanium bikes in pro peloton?

    We're not talking about average joes.

    Mark up, as in build cheap, sell expensive.
  • 01-16-2019
    taodemon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Finx View Post
    Maybe, if you're competing in Cat1/2/Pro level racing.

    For most of us average joes, it's pretty much meaningless.

    Not really, it could be the difference in getting dropped or not on a ride with stronger riders. On a century it might mean you aren't as destroyed at the end. While it might not be a matter of winning and losing for us it still has appreciable benefits.
  • 01-16-2019
    Waspinator
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tlg View Post
    So you clearly don't understand what strength to weight ratio is. It's an absolute. Period.

    And for the umpteenth time you could never build an aerodynamic Ti frame and meet the UCI limit. No one will ever ride a Ti bike in the pro peloton. Sorry. You're so hung up on the UCI limit.... which is irrelevant. Weight is pretty much irrelevant in the pro peloton. Some of them are riding bikes over the UCI limit because they know aerodynamics trumps weight. Heck, a Madone SLR 9 weights a portly 16lbs and the disc version is a hefty 17lbs. Geee why would they choose a 16-17lb bike over a svelte 15lb Ti bike? :rolleyes:

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tlg View Post
    Sheesh. It's been studied a bazillion times.

    Same rider. Same wheels. Aero bike vs Steel bike = 50sec over 40km. That's 1.25 seconds every km! Go ahead... keep beliving aerodynamics have no significance. :rolleyes:

    <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/XE_GKePa3CQ" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

    Typical bicycle industry stupidity. Useless drivel that would be skewered by legitimate engineers.

    The pedaling rider on the bicycles is a gargantuan confounding factor... especially when you’re talking about a one second difference over the course of a km. If you think his movement would be identical on both bicycles, you’re nuts. Even if the drive trains were identical, you’d be nuts. (Granted, to their credit, they did acknowledge that the drivetrains were different).

    The proper way to study this would be to have a static object on the frames representing the rider (eg a rider or a dummy), and blow wind at these things at increasing velocities (up to the maximum speed a rider may propel a bicycle) and measure the force of the drag. This should be done repeatedly, with the rider in different positions each time (eg pedals mid-stroke or at 3 and 9 o’clock, hands in hoods, hands in drops, etc). Drag forces should be measured for each velocity and each rider position. But having some bald-headed twirp get on a bike and pedal into the wind is a surefire way to introduce error and skew results.
  • 01-16-2019
    tlg
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Waspinator View Post
    Typical bicycle industry stupidity. Useless drivel that would be skewered by legitimate engineers.

    So it should be easy for you to provide the "legitimate" engineers who've skewered it. We'll wait for your proof.


    Quote:

    The proper way to study this would be to have a static object on the frames representing the rider (eg a rider or a dummy), and blow wind at these things at increasing velocities (up to the maximum speed a rider may propel a bicycle) and measure the force of the drag. This should be done repeatedly, with the rider in different positions each time (eg pedals mid-stroke or at 3 and 9 o’clock, hands in hoods, hands in drops, etc). But having some bald-headed twirp get on a bike and pedal into the wind is a surefire way to introduce bias and skew results.
    Oh.... you're the expert on the proper way to study this?

    FYI... riding a bike isn't static.
  • 01-16-2019
    taodemon
    Apparently a BS in aeronautics/mechanical engineering + M.S. aeronautics + PhD in aeronautics doesn't make you a legitimate engineer.

    You should really see about that lobotomy. You could even do it to yourself being a physician and all.:rolleyes:

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tlg View Post
    So it should be easy for you to provide the "legitimate" engineers who've skewered it. We'll wait for your proof.


    Oh.... you're the expert on the proper way to study this?

    FYI... riding a bike isn't static.

    His "proper" way is about as flawed a way of testing as it gets. :confused:
  • 01-16-2019
    Waspinator
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tlg View Post
    So you clearly don't understand what strength to weight ratio is. It's an absolute. Period.

    And for the umpteenth time you could never build an aerodynamic Ti frame and meet the UCI limit. No one will ever ride a Ti bike in the pro peloton. Sorry. You're so hung up on the UCI limit.... which is irrelevant. Weight is pretty much irrelevant in the pro peloton. Some of them are riding bikes over the UCI limit because they know aerodynamics trumps weight. Heck, a Madone SLR 9 weights a portly 16lbs and the disc version is a hefty 17lbs. Geee why would they choose a 16-17lb bike over a svelte 15lb Ti bike? :rolleyes:

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tlg View Post
    So it should be easy for you to provide the "legitimate" engineers who've skewered it. We'll wait for your proof.


    Oh.... you're the expert on the proper way to study this?

    FYI... riding a bike isn't static.

    When you’re familiar with scientific method, eliminating big confounding factors like that becomes common sense.

    Yes, I realize that riding a bike isn’t static. But since I doubt Honda would loan their Asimo robot for such a test, the next best way would be to test wind resistance with the static rider in various stages of pedal stroke.

    The upshot is that easily 15-20 different measurements for each frame would have to be taken, at different rider positions at different velocities.

    The experiment in the video posted here was comically bad, and is, unfortunately, what the bicycle industry considers to be “research”.
  • 01-16-2019
    tlg
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Waspinator View Post
    When you’re familiar with scientific method, eliminating big confounding factors like that becomes common sense.

    Yes, I realize that riding a bike isn’t static. But since I doubt Honda would loan their Asimo robot for such a test, the next best way would be to test wind resistance with the static rider in various stages of pedal stroke.

    The upshot is that easily 15-20 different measurements for each frame would have to be taken, at different rider positions at different velocities.

    The experiment in the video posted here was comically bad, and is, unfortunately, what the bicycle industry considers to be “research”.

    STILL waiting for you to provide the "legitimate" engineers who agree with you.

    How long shall we wait? Can I go get lunch?
  • 01-16-2019
    taodemon
    Apparently none of these bike companies ever thought of testing each element individually because they made one video with a bald guy on it. The rest of the time I'm sure the tunnel sits there unused.:rolleyes:

    I guess engineers that have worked in F1 who then move to the cycling industry really aren't legitimate either. The only legitimate engineer/physician is wasp. :thumbsup:

    I wonder if wasp is a flat earther too. :idea:
  • 01-16-2019
    Waspinator
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tlg View Post
    So you clearly don't understand what strength to weight ratio is. It's an absolute. Period.

    And for the umpteenth time you could never build an aerodynamic Ti frame and meet the UCI limit. No one will ever ride a Ti bike in the pro peloton. Sorry. You're so hung up on the UCI limit.... which is irrelevant. Weight is pretty much irrelevant in the pro peloton. Some of them are riding bikes over the UCI limit because they know aerodynamics trumps weight. Heck, a Madone SLR 9 weights a portly 16lbs and the disc version is a hefty 17lbs. Geee why would they choose a 16-17lb bike over a svelte 15lb Ti bike? :rolleyes:

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tlg View Post
    STILL waiting for you to provide the "legitimate" engineers who agree with you.

    How long shall we wait? Can I go get lunch?

    I’m not the one making dubious claims about the importance of frame aerodynamics. Am I.
  • 01-16-2019
    Marc
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tlg View Post
    STILL waiting for you to provide the "legitimate" engineers who agree with you.

    How long shall we wait? Can I go get lunch?

    Well you know how science and engineering works right?

    Someone declares and explanation, and it is your job to prove them wrong. Duh. The fact you don't get this clearly means you're less of an engineer than he is.
  • 01-16-2019
    tlg
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Waspinator View Post
    I’m not the one making dubious claims about the importance of frame aerodynamics. Am I.

    Yes. You are. It is EXACTLY what you're doing.
    You're claiming it's of no importance. Which is a claim about it's importance. Yet you've provided ZERO "legitimate" engineers or data to agree with you.

    The burden is now upon you. You made the claim. Put up or shut up. I'll go get lunch while waiting for your proof.
  • 01-16-2019
    rideit
    Thif Fred is a failboat, failing on the high feas.
  • 01-16-2019
    cxwrench
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Waspinator View Post
    When you’re familiar with scientific method, eliminating big confounding factors like that becomes common sense.

    Yes, I realize that riding a bike isn’t static. But since I doubt Honda would loan their Asimo robot for such a test, the next best way would be to test wind resistance with the static rider in various stages of pedal stroke.

    The upshot is that easily 15-20 different measurements for each frame would have to be taken, at different rider positions at different velocities.

    The experiment in the video posted here was comically bad, and is, unfortunately, what the bicycle industry considers to be “research”.

    Since the rider is moving (pedaling) you don't think it would make more sense to test w/ a rider moving in the tunnel? Really? :rolleyes:
  • 01-16-2019
    taodemon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Waspinator View Post
    I’m not the one making dubious claims about the importance of frame aerodynamics. Am I.

    Yes, you the "physician" are the one making dubious claims that they don't matter right from the start of the thread so it is on you to to provide evidence to support your make believe bs. There is no lack of studies supporting the benefits of aero. I'm not having much luck finding anything supporting your alternate reality though.
  • 01-16-2019
    Waspinator
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tlg View Post
    So you clearly don't understand what strength to weight ratio is. It's an absolute. Period.

    And for the umpteenth time you could never build an aerodynamic Ti frame and meet the UCI limit. No one will ever ride a Ti bike in the pro peloton. Sorry. You're so hung up on the UCI limit.... which is irrelevant. Weight is pretty much irrelevant in the pro peloton. Some of them are riding bikes over the UCI limit because they know aerodynamics trumps weight. Heck, a Madone SLR 9 weights a portly 16lbs and the disc version is a hefty 17lbs. Geee why would they choose a 16-17lb bike over a svelte 15lb Ti bike? :rolleyes:

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tlg View Post
    Yes. You are. It is EXACTLY what you're doing.
    You're claiming it's of no importance. Which is a claim about it's importance. Yet you've provided ZERO "legitimate" engineers or data to agree with you.

    The burden is now upon you. You made the claim. Put up or shut up. I'll go get lunch while waiting for your proof.

    That argument is ridiculous.

    Someone made a claim about aerodynamics, and I’m calling it BS based on the fact that there is no good research to justify the claim. So it falls upon me to prove the claim wrong?
  • 01-16-2019
    cxwrench
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Waspinator View Post
    That argument is ridiculous.

    Someone made a claim about aerodynamics, and I’m calling it BS based on the fact that there is no good research to justify the claim. So it falls upon me to prove the claim wrong?

    Yep. You need to back up claims, that's just how things work.
  • 01-16-2019
    taodemon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Waspinator View Post
    It seems you can easily build a Ti bike that is below the UCI weight limit, and that has excellent ride characteristics. The only thing you cannot do with them is build them to be “aero”, which I think most of us agree is a bunch of BS anyway. (At a mere 30-40mph with a large, clunky object - eg the rider - atop the bike, wind resistance from the bike is comparatively negligible)


    First post by wasp...

    Yes you made the first claim that aero is BS and have yet to provide any proof other than that you are a physician and know better than all the engineers in the world.
  • 01-16-2019
    tlg
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Waspinator View Post
    That argument is ridiculous.

    Someone made a claim about aerodynamics, and I’m calling it BS based on the fact that there is no good research to justify the claim. So it falls upon me to prove the claim wrong?

    That "someone" is you! lol
    It's your claim all the wind tunnel testing and research is BS.
    It's your claim aerodynamics is of no importance.

    Those are claims YOU keep making. The burden is upon you to support your claims. That's how it works. Put up or shut up.
  • 01-16-2019
    tlg
    Since I have nothing to do for lunch, I'll do his homework.
    So Waspinator, go ahead, dis-prove it. And you can't simply call it BS. You must provide data from "legitimate" engineers.

    https://www.pezcyclingnews.com/techn...o-redefined-2/
    https://www.pezcyclingnews.com/photo...l11-3tubes.jpg
    Scott provided the diagram below to show computer modeled airflow around a round tube, a fully ‘aero’ NACA tube, and a FOIL tube, which gives a good indication of how well the various tube shapes perform to wind coming from straight on.

    Cyril told us: “In our first study, we wanted to find out which shape would be the best to optimize our three parameters: stiffness, weight, and aerodynamics. So, I simulated a round tube, a complete NACA profile like in the Plasma, and then I tried to analyze the barrier of the airflow on the tube and the separation. On the round tube, you can see the flow creating a lot of turbulence and separating quite early. Early in this case is in the middle of the tube. That creates a lot of negative force and a big tail with some turbulence. On the complete NACA profile, you can see that there is a very laminar flow around the tubing, which stays attached for a very long time to the tail. The separation is very narrow. That reduces the negative force on the back of the tube.”

    As part of my due diligence, I called the Dave Salazar at A2 Windtunnel, who confirmed the Scott’s diagram is on the up. Dave also confirmed that the least aero of all tube shapes is in fact the ‘round’ tube – which generally causes air to separate sooner than a foil shape as it flows past, thereby creating more turbulence and a larger wake which will add more drag.

    http://img848.imageshack.us/img848/8...elapr2011n.png