Why no titanium bikes in pro peloton? - Page 6
Page 6 of 12 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 126 to 150 of 277
  1. #126
    'brifter' is f'ing stupid
    Reputation: cxwrench's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    15,049
    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.
    #promechaniclife

  2. #127
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    774
    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.

  3. #128
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: taodemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    983
    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.
    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.
    Last edited by taodemon; 01-16-2019 at 08:45 AM.

  4. #129
    tlg
    tlg is offline
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: tlg's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    16,536
    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.
    Custom Di2 & Garmin/GoPro mounts 2013 SuperSix EVO Hi-MOD Team * 2004 Klein Aura V

  5. #130
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: velodog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    8,366
    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.
    Too old to ride plastic

  6. #131
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    3,348
    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.

  7. #132
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: velodog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    8,366
    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.
    Too old to ride plastic

  8. #133
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: taodemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    983
    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.

  9. #134
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    357
    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?
    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.

    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.
    Last edited by Waspinator; 01-16-2019 at 09:29 AM.

  10. #135
    tlg
    tlg is offline
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: tlg's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    16,536
    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.


    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.
    Custom Di2 & Garmin/GoPro mounts 2013 SuperSix EVO Hi-MOD Team * 2004 Klein Aura V

  11. #136
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: taodemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    983
    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.

    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.

  12. #137
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    357
    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?
    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”.

  13. #138
    tlg
    tlg is offline
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: tlg's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    16,536
    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?
    Custom Di2 & Garmin/GoPro mounts 2013 SuperSix EVO Hi-MOD Team * 2004 Klein Aura V

  14. #139
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: taodemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    983
    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.

    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.

    I wonder if wasp is a flat earther too.

  15. #140
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    357
    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?
    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.

  16. #141
    Adorable Furry Hombre
    Reputation: Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    29,277
    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.
    "Refreshingly Unconcerned With The Vulgar Exigencies Of Veracity "

  17. #142
    tlg
    tlg is offline
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: tlg's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    16,536
    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.
    Custom Di2 & Garmin/GoPro mounts 2013 SuperSix EVO Hi-MOD Team * 2004 Klein Aura V

  18. #143
    Cleavage Of The Tetons
    Reputation: rideit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    1,750
    Thif Fred is a failboat, failing on the high feas.

  19. #144
    'brifter' is f'ing stupid
    Reputation: cxwrench's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    15,049
    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?
    #promechaniclife

  20. #145
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: taodemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    983
    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.

  21. #146
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    357
    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?
    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?

  22. #147
    'brifter' is f'ing stupid
    Reputation: cxwrench's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    15,049
    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.
    #promechaniclife

  23. #148
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: taodemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    983
    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.
    Last edited by taodemon; 01-16-2019 at 10:23 AM.

  24. #149
    tlg
    tlg is offline
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: tlg's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    16,536
    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.
    Custom Di2 & Garmin/GoPro mounts 2013 SuperSix EVO Hi-MOD Team * 2004 Klein Aura V

  25. #150
    tlg
    tlg is offline
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: tlg's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    16,536
    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/

    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.

    Custom Di2 & Garmin/GoPro mounts 2013 SuperSix EVO Hi-MOD Team * 2004 Klein Aura V

Page 6 of 12 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Did the pro peloton ever use aluminum bikes?
    By armstrong in forum Beginner's Corner
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 12-16-2013, 05:35 PM
  2. Warning! Warning! Fred in the peloton, fred in the peloton
    By looigi in forum General Cycling Discussion
    Replies: 193
    Last Post: 05-29-2012, 06:18 AM
  3. Are Litespeed Bikes In The Pro Peloton?
    By MaddSkillz in forum General Cycling Discussion
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 02-26-2009, 04:29 PM
  4. Why Titanium? Or why not Titanium?
    By acid_rider in forum Bikes, Frames and Forks
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: 02-19-2009, 10:10 PM
  5. Titanium: forgotten in peloton?
    By gogogomoveit in forum General Cycling Discussion
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 08-04-2004, 09:02 AM

Posting Permissions

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

THE SITE

ABOUT ROADBIKEREVIEW

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2020 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.