[HN Gopher] Bike Frame Stiffness
___________________________________________________________________
Bike Frame Stiffness
Author : giuliomagnifico
Score : 73 points
Date : 2022-12-21 11:59 UTC (11 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.cyclist.co.uk)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.cyclist.co.uk)
| mtmail wrote:
| https://www.cube.eu/bg-en/cube-world/technology/test-lab has more
| photos of a test lab, split into road vs mountain bike tests. As
| a mountain biker I don't care much about road conditions but I
| want the frame and suspension tested going down stairs, jumps and
| other forces.
| cloudc0de wrote:
| I got a Surly steel bike that rides like a dream, I can't go back
| to the stiffer stuff. I also had an aluminum bike break in half
| just cause I rode off a curb, I don't worry about that at all
| with steel frames.
| markandrewj wrote:
| Just some general thoughts, so please understand I am not
| prescribing one over the other. The ride quality of a bike is
| largely dependent on frame geometry and manufacturing process.
| With a good layup, and geometry, carbon can be more stiff then
| steel. This is actually the promise of carbon, to be stiffer then
| steel while being lighter. However a good quality aluminum bike
| can also be lighter, and more stiff, then a carbon bike with a
| low quality layup. Steel tubing also comes in a variety of
| different qualities.
|
| https://gravelcycling.wordpress.com/2016/07/07/steel-the-dif....
|
| The obvious benefit to steel for me is the reliability and
| repairability. Ride quality can also be different depending on
| surface, steel is better at dampening vibrations then aluminum on
| gravel surfaces. Although carbon can obviously be quite nice, and
| you are seeing it used in tough ultra distance rides like the
| GDMBR. That said your wheel choice, and seatpost, will have a
| bigger impact on ride quality then frame material as far as
| vibration. Generally speaking the weight of your bike is going to
| be most noticable on climbs. How noticable will also depend on
| your gear range.
|
| This video about titanium bike myths discusses some of the points
| I outlined above in further detail.
|
| https://youtu.be/1CTjg1TFHDc
| javier_e06 wrote:
| My impression with stiffness is can be annoying if once is not
| pushing hard in a criterium or something. I have a carbon/Alu
| frame and an old steel bike. The steel bike shields me from the
| imperfections of the road. For long rides that is ideal. Very
| interesting article.
| LAC-Tech wrote:
| If I ever get into recreational cycling I need to make a mental
| note to not read about any performance stuff ever again. I'll get
| something rigid with relatively wide tires and disk brakes and
| not give two shits about weight or stiffness. I'm not nor have I
| ever been someone looking to shave seconds off in a race, I'm
| just some naturally unfit guy that happens to love riding bikes.
|
| Also need to stop talking to other cyclists online. "Oh yeah 100
| miles is easy", not for me it isn't.
| wnolens wrote:
| I ride daily, to commute and workout and just for joy on a
| Sunday. In a city.
|
| I've never considered anything but a steel frame (most common),
| in the realm of $1000 or less fully built.
|
| Sure, I desire more. But we're talking about 10% satisfaction
| improvement for my (our) needs. And I definitely will splurge
| on a new bike soon, but only because I have money to burn.
|
| I am contemplating a $3-500ish fitting with all the latest tech
| and a trained expert. That feels honestly worth it for anyone
| because it will likely save you injury.
| mperham wrote:
| A good amount of "legacy" bike advocates are actively hostile
| to e-bikes, equating them to "cheating". It's gatekeeping
| bullshit.
|
| Anytime someone asks me bike buying advice, my only reply is
| "go to your local dealer and talk with them". That relationship
| and taking a few test rides are far more important than any
| spec on a sheet.
| mauvehaus wrote:
| ... and if the first shop you visit isn't vibing with what
| your goals and/or personality are, try another.
|
| Shops that cater to commuters and transportation cyclists are
| very different from ones that cater to hardcore road or
| mountain bike riders.
| fluoridation wrote:
| The thing about bikes is that if you want to go fast, you
| have to put in kilometers on the saddle. That trains not just
| your body, but also your mind, and teaches you how to behave
| on the road. An electric bike allows someone with little
| training to go much faster than they would be able to
| otherwise. Now imagine that you're an experienced rider going
| at a cool 35 km/h and as you're about to pass a newbie on an
| electric bike they swerve into you because they don't yet
| have the habit of looking back before moving sideways. Yes,
| it's a mistake of that particular person alone, but it's a
| mistake they were able to make because e-bikes exist.
| MezzoDelCammin wrote:
| Try to get a bike fit first. Ideally after some basic
| stretchwork / few classes of mobility training just to get the
| feel of what Your body is capable of in the short term.
|
| It sounds like waste of money for something people feel like
| they should be able to judge themselves, but bikes aren't
| shoes. The issues often develop only after some hours of
| effort. If You're a beginner, chances are the flexibility of
| Your back / hips / joints will be the most limiting factor.
| Zigurd wrote:
| Buying a racing bike, which a lot of people do, is as silly as
| buying GS racing skis, which hardly anyone does for
| recreational skiing because it's a Bad Idea. You won't like it
| unless you are as fit as a racer. Even then you won't find
| either the bike or skis pleasant for any purpose other than
| training to race.
|
| Elite athletes are a different species from you and me.
| fluoridation wrote:
| Nah. It's not about how fit you are, it's about what type of
| riding you enjoy. A road bike lets you go faster, but also
| makes you push yourself more that you otherwise would,
| because of the geometry and posture. If you prefer to have
| relaxing rides you're not going to enjoy road bikes, because
| they're just not built to facilitate them.
| jupp0r wrote:
| That's absolutely not true. Commuting on a nice road bike is
| awesome. There's a trade off curve in regards to weight so
| it's really not necessary to spend 5 digits for the casual
| rider of course.
| Zigurd wrote:
| There are road bikes for fitness rides and touring, and
| there are racing geometry road bikes. Most people are
| better off with an endurance geometry road bike or a gravel
| bike.
|
| My point is that more people buy racing equipment for
| cycling than do skiers for skiing. It is more obvious that
| a straight sidecut on a long stiff ski won't be fun, than
| it is that a low stack height and high seat will hurt your
| neck. You'll see a loot of kludges to fix these decisions:
| adjustable stems, steering tube extenders, etc.
| dilyevsky wrote:
| It's awesome if you work at a place small enough that you
| can take it next to your desk or if they have security-
| manned bike room
| dilyevsky wrote:
| Disagree here. Just dont take your gs skies to west coast
| resorts ;) On east coast and in europe they work just fine.
| jupp0r wrote:
| Make sure you never ride a friends carbon bike then. The
| experience is really nice imho, independent of the weight.
| some-guy wrote:
| As another commenter said, bike fit is very important,
| especially to mitigate overuse injuries (don't be like me!).
| Beyond that I have found my $400 mish-mash of mid-2000s mid-
| range road parts attached to a $90 aluminum Nashbar frame to be
| sufficient for my road cycling needs.
| rhn_mk1 wrote:
| Mass matters for the simple reason that if you need to climb a
| hill, the energy required to lift a mass is proportional to the
| mass. Granted, barring extremely heavy bikes, ~3/4 of the mass
| is the rider.
| kqr wrote:
| Also you reclaim the energy on the downhill. Mass doesn't
| matter as much as people used to think. (Hence no modern
| bikes being made out of drillium.)
|
| The one thing where I suspect mass might matter is in the
| wheels. It's a huge difference between getting a heavy wheel
| spinning and a light one, and at least for
| commuting/recreational usage, most of that will be bled off
| as heat anyway.
| fluoridation wrote:
| On the other hand, a heavy wheel will also hold more
| angular momentum and so will better resist drag, at the
| cost of more difficult acceleration, braking, and stiffer
| but more stable steering.
| rhn_mk1 wrote:
| You reclaim it downhill if you book it. Casual riders seem
| to brake after reaching a certain speed, so they will send
| that energy to heat the brakes. Plus, the unfun of getting
| up the hill is probably more important than the fun going
| down, as it takes longer :)
| fluoridation wrote:
| The human is more like >80% of the mass of the entire system,
| not ~75%.
| layer8 wrote:
| Not sure why this is downvoted. A normal bike shouldn't
| weigh more than 15 kg (some weigh just half of that), so a
| human at 75% would only weigh 45 kg at most. Maybe people
| are thinking of e-bikes, which are a lot heavier.
| Zigurd wrote:
| If you have a quality aluminum frame bike, it probably has a
| carbon fork. If you find the ride harsh, you'll get most of the
| benefit of a carbon frame by swapping in a carbon seat post,
| stem, and bars. There are plenty of good, moderately priced
| carbon parts available, and changing these parts is very simple.
| If you are on 23mm tires, change them for 28mm, which will fit in
| almost all rim brakes.
|
| On lo-end carbon frame bikes you will find alloy bars and seat
| posts, which is silly.
| MezzoDelCammin wrote:
| My personal $.02 on frame stiffness is that it's way overrated.
|
| The bike I personally spend most time on is a steel frame, but
| I've never once asked myself a question of "is this stiff /
| bouncy" enough. When I started having issues with too much road
| vibration giving me a mild case of cyclists palsy (temporary mild
| paralysis of ulnar nerve), it was due to the surface I was riding
| on (gravel) and the distances / times. Solution was adding
| suspension stem to the handlebar.
|
| To me, the "steel is real" argument speaks about the general
| durability / repairability of the frame. But AFAIK, modern
| CroMoly steel butted tubes aren't "that" great for welding or
| cold setting either (to be debated). IMO the famous road repairs
| of 90's adventurers who had their cracked frames repaired by no
| matter what farmer with a stick welder in the midle of Kazakhstan
| are simply long gone now.
|
| Personally, the thing I watch for in a bike frame first and
| foremost is the geometry and the actual personal fit (ideally by
| a professional fitter).
|
| The number one issue I've seen most beginners have related to
| bike frames is simply being too optimistic on their abilities and
| spending thousands on frames that they simply don't have the
| mobility and flexibility for.
| fluoridation wrote:
| Yeah, pretty much. Bicycle frames are basically completely
| rigid vertically, as far as the forces that are normally
| encountered is concerned. The only possible source of vertical
| compliance are the tires and the suspension, if there is any.
| Some frames may be more or less laterally or torsionally
| compliant, but I'm skeptic that either makes much of a
| difference while riding.
| wiredfool wrote:
| I'd add saddle rails/saddles, handlebars, and forks to that
| list of vertically compliant parts. There's also a bit in the
| wheels, but only 1mm or so.
| soared wrote:
| Bike stiffness is really interesting, especially when compared to
| skiing. I think its easier to understand with boot and ski
| stiffness which operate in similar manners, where a stiffer boot
| allows you to convert more of your movement down to the ski
| instead of being absorbed by the boot!
|
| I recently switched my indoor trainer from my aluminum frame to
| and old carbon frame and found it much more comfortable, which I
| think is from the less stiff old carbon allowing more movement.
|
| I wasn't aware of bottom bracket stiffness, but seems to make
| sense that single speeds tend to feel better for me if the bottom
| bracket can be simpler and stiffer?
| arnejenssen wrote:
| Yes. Imagine rowing a boat with flexible oars. Then it is easy
| to understand how much force is lost.
| fluoridation wrote:
| Well, not really. It's not like you'd be permanently bending
| the oars. When you complete each stroke you're going to get
| back nearly all of the energy that went into the elastic
| deformation. There's going to inevitably be some energy lost
| in warming up the oar, but it's not at all obvious that a
| slightly flexible oar would be perceptively or even
| effectively worse than a stiff oar.
| rhn_mk1 wrote:
| How is an article about stiffness and deformations lacking a
| single picture of the forces in play?
| s1mon wrote:
| There are a bunch of photos showing the test fixtures that
| they're using to measure frame flex which pretty clearly show
| what they're constraining and where they're adding force with
| the cylinder. It's not a free body diagram and it doesn't show
| the rider, but what exactly are you looking for?
| rhn_mk1 wrote:
| Well, diagrams. Apply this force, get this displacement, this
| is how wheels are out of plane (disregarding that turning
| makes them out of plane already).
|
| None of the pictures are labeled, and they only show one
| setup: pressing the pedal without sitting on the seat,
| without holding the handlebars, while both wheels remain in
| plane. I'm not sure if it's even possible to keep both wheels
| in plane when pedalling on a moving bicycle, if only due to
| pressing on the handlebars.
| steelframe wrote:
| I feel this HN account had been just waiting for this article.
|
| The points the article makes about torsional and lateral tension
| helped me understand better why I prefer steel over carbon. I've
| always described it as "feeling more in-sync" with the bike. For
| example, the subtle instinctive biomechanical action of putting
| more weight down on the outside pedal to re-align the wheels when
| you start to understeer just feels great, like you're "one" with
| the bicycle.
| zwieback wrote:
| Yes, sir, and you had to wait 10 years for it! I've only had
| steel frames myself but when I try out non-steel frames I can't
| say I dislike them, just that they feel strange.
|
| I'm still trying to understand the talk about over/understeer
| and how the bottom bracket is involved. Are you saying you put
| down more weight on the outside pedal on each rotation of the
| crank as you're going through a turn?
|
| Also, isn't there some wasted energy going into flexing the
| frame that should go into the road?
| PascLeRasc wrote:
| There is some wasted energy from flexing during really hard
| pedaling, but off-road this can actually make you more
| efficient when the frame keeps the rear wheel attached to
| uneven ground.
| giuliomagnifico wrote:
| Yes but are dispersing power. It's the same (endless) story as
| the vinyl VS digital... you can "feel" better the vinyl but the
| digital is technically better.
| rhn_mk1 wrote:
| Where is the power dispersed? Typically bike frames are made
| of elastic materials which return the power that was injected
| through the deformation. If the power isn't returned, then
| the deformation was plastic and you have a bent frame, so
| that isn't really an option.
| giuliomagnifico wrote:
| Yes but it returns the power when your pedal is at the
| "death point" and you aren't making power on the frame,
| then the power is dispersed through the frame flex when not
| needed. The frame should be soft vertically on the seat
| tube.
| rhn_mk1 wrote:
| I'm not sure if I see it. If you're not putting a force
| on the frame, then the frame is not twisted, and it
| doesn't return anything. You have to push in order to
| recuperate the energy.
|
| If you remove the force so fast that the frame doesn't
| have the time to return the energy back to you, then it
| will disperse the energy by ringing. But i don't think
| it's realistic unless you drive your pedals with hammer
| strikes.
| zardo wrote:
| You also have the possibility of transferring that energy
| into tire deformation and heating.
| zwieback wrote:
| I would think that most of the energy goes in between 12
| and 3 o'clock and then flexes out from 3 to 6. So if the
| flex pushes back against your leg a good part of the
| energy should go back on the road.
| ehnto wrote:
| Depends on your goals though I think. Since ride quality and
| feel is a factor, it's not objectively true that carbon is
| better than steel. Just that it has better stiffness. Do you
| want better stiffness? Well it depends entirely on what you
| are doing and what you want to experience.
|
| For example, in a touring bike, you might prefer steels
| robustness and softer feel for long hauls. Some people might
| prefer carbon for it's lightness. It's all down to choice,
| neither is objectively better.
| giuliomagnifico wrote:
| Yeah absolutely correct but the article was talking about
| professional cycling. I'm also a cyclist (not touring
| oriented) and the stuff a bike is, the more I like it.
|
| A racing bike should flex vertically but not horizontally.
| blacksmith_tb wrote:
| I tend to agree - unless you had the ability to compare the
| ride of identical frames made of different materials - same
| angles, same components and tires, I suspect a lot of the
| 'feel' of the ride comes from having been told steel is more
| forgiving, aluminum is harsh, etc. We have a lot of very
| subtle control over the frame, angles, wall thicknesses, and
| I would expect a skilled builder to be able to produce the
| desired performance for whatever frame material. That said,
| there do seem to be some obvious poor choices, I am not going
| touring on an all-carbon frame that could fail
| catastrophically in the middle of nowhere, no matter how
| comfy.
| ehnto wrote:
| Have you ridden aluminium bikes in a way that lets you compare?
| I have a steel and an aluminum frame, but they have different
| applications so I can't compare. I do feel more harshness in
| the bars on the ALU frames, like sharper peaks in vibrations.
| baggsie wrote:
| A good alu frame is more comfortable than a cheap steel or
| carbon frame IME. I think a lot of the perceived differences
| comes down to tyres rather than frame material - steel bikes
| are much more likely to have >35mm tyres than alu with 25 -
| 28mm.
| SyzygistSix wrote:
| And a really good steel frame (or titanium that has been
| butted to ride like steel) is even more enjoyable still, at
| least for a lot of folks. A hand built steel frame is
| luxurious and will ride like a dream.
| Gualdrapo wrote:
| From the Prodigiosa (part of Gios which still makes steel
| bikes following their philosophy from the 70s-80s
| bicycles) website[0]:
|
| > - The true quality of a frame is felt in the descents -
| In a racing bicycle, half a degree in the construction of
| the frame is more important than half a kilo in its
| weight - 20 grams on the wheels are more important than
| 500 grams on the frame - The tubes of a frame are like
| the ingredients of a dish. All are important but the
| taste depends on the skill of the chef - A racing bicycle
| must be made to measure - The bicycle is the heritage of
| Italian Culture, and we must preserve it - A steel frame
| is like a gold coin. It keeps it's value as the years
| pass by - The frame is the heart of the bicycle, and the
| groupset merely the clothes it puts on
|
| [0] http://www.prodigiosa.it/index.php/telaio
| deebosong wrote:
| I've tried the following:
|
| * steel, straight-gauge Hi-Ten from the mid 90's
|
| * steel, double-butted, Columbus SL from the late 70's/
| early 80's
|
| * steel, double-butted, Tange 1 from the late 80's
|
| * steel, not sure but it was a Kona Rova from 2020 I
| believe
|
| * aluminum, Cannondale R300 from the mid 90's
|
| * aluminum, Specialized SmartWeld DSW from 2016
|
| * aluminum, Cannondale Synapse from the late 2010's
|
| I personally love Columbus SL. I believe it was 0.1 mm
| thicker all around than even the Tange 1 bike in numbers
| (but I'm not sure if both triangles were double-butted or
| only the main one). But it feels springier, even with the
| same wheels & tires & components swapped between the two
| frames.
|
| I didn't mind the Cannondale Synapse. It subjectively
| felt better than the Smartweld aluminum, but the
| difference could have been in the wider tires on the
| Synapse (versus the Spesh).
|
| The Kona Rove... for some reason was a bit of a letdown.
| People seem to love that bike, though.
|
| And Hi-Ten is as stiff and clunky as everyone says. Pure
| beater material right there.
|
| But the Cannondale R300's mid 90's aluminum was even
| harsher and wrist-numbing. It'll rattle you to your core!
|
| All of this is anecdotal & subjective, though. I've
| learned to compensate the added road-noise from the
| Specialized aluminum by hovering off my saddle and
| bending my elbows a bit while loosening my grip.
|
| But man, I love that racing steel bike. It makes me wanna
| try Tange Prestige of the road variety, and Ti as well.
|
| Only other thing I'm super curious about is CAAD 12
| Aluminum, but on forums I've read that CAAD 12's are
| slightly harsher than SuperSix Evo's (all carbon).
|
| ---
|
| Edited to include some other bikes & models
| SyzygistSix wrote:
| I have two keep-for-life bicycles made from Reynolds 853
| steel and both are exquisite. I'm not sure what the
| modern equivalent is. But I need to find out soon-ish. I
| need one more nice touring/gravel bike for my final two
| decades of riding.
| wiredfool wrote:
| I've ridden (mostly in the 60cm sizes):
|
| - Steel Pogliaghi Track bike. 80's vintage, handbuilt.
| Thinwall standard diameter tubing. Probably the flexiest
| bike I've ridden, super easy to see BB and fork flex.
|
| - Handbuilt steel road, mid-90s, Columbus OS tubing I
| think. Kenesis bonded AL fork. Pretty harsh. The carbon
| forks of the time were much smoother. When I get it from
| storage (where it's been for a decade), I'm going to put
| a custom steel fork on it and ride it on sunny days and
| smooth pavement.
|
| - Handbuilt steel 26" road tandem. Late 90's. hand built
| steel unicrown fork. I _love_ this bike. It's running
| wide Rene Herse tires now. It is so planted on descents
| with bad pavement. My next single is going to try to
| replicate the feel of this bike in a single. (probably
| something like a Crust Lightning Bolt, if I can get one
| in the EU)
|
| - An Al Redline Cross bike (kinesis unicrown alu fork,
| which was an out and out noodle), and later with a Surly
| crosscheck fork (harsh, heavy). Very comfy till I killed
| the fork. Sadly, there's a fatigue crack at the bottom
| bracket.
|
| - An over stiff Al gravel bike (PlanetX Full Monty) w/
| carbon fork, mildly redeemed by 650cx48 RH tires. It's so
| stiff that standing really isn't encouraged, the bike
| just feels dead.
|
| - Inexpensive Carbon road bike (PlanetX pro carbon) with
| carbon fork. Nice enough for the 6k miles I used it, but
| I'm done with 25c tires and no space for fenders. It's no
| faster than the gravel bike, despite being 4 kilos
| lighter.
|
| - Mid 90's Cannondale 3.0 frame. Stiff. I greatly
| preferred the Steel one that replaced it.
|
| My experience would say -- The forks really matter. The
| lighter unicrown forks are so much better than the super
| stiff ones. Wide, supple tires matter too. They're a good
| 7+% faster on the tandem, and probably the only reason I
| like riding the AL Gravel bike.
| zardo wrote:
| > A hand built steel frame is luxurious and will ride
| like a dream.
|
| Surely that depends on the hands.
| SyzygistSix wrote:
| When I was working in a shop I had the opportunity to ride a
| lot of different bikes. Generally steel felt less harsh which
| allows for longer rides and tracked significantly better.
| Although this was a couple decades ago.
| boc wrote:
| I'll say it also depends on the fabrication method.
|
| I have an Allez Sprint from a few years ago - it's aluminum
| alloy with carbon forks+seat, but the joints are welded a few
| inches away from the joints instead of right at the joint.
| The result is a stronger bike and an extremely responsive
| ride that I enjoy for rides <50m miles. You'll feel
| everything in the pavement, which is both a good and bad
| thing depending on your preferences.
|
| For longer rides it's hard to beat my old-school fully lugged
| steel frame on flat routes, but the added weight usually
| isn't worth the tradeoff for me.
| petre wrote:
| There's more nuance to that. A 4130 steel frame with oversize
| top and seat tubes and thicker walls (0.9/0.7/0.9 mm)
| typically used on touring bikes is also going to be stiff. A
| too thin down tube will make the bottom bracket flex too
| much.
|
| This is a quality modern steel tube set:
|
| https://ciclicorsa.com/shop/columbus-spirit-tube-set/
|
| A frame will retail to at least 4x times as much.
|
| https://ciclicorsa.com/shop/cinelli-nemo-tig-disc-frameset/
| w_TF wrote:
| what matters more than anything is frame geometry, this has
| much more influence on how a bike feels than frame material
|
| older aluminum frames have a reputation for feeling harsh,
| but it's not because they're made out of aluminum
| wiredfool wrote:
| In a way, it was, because they could go super large tubes
| without the weight penalty. Kleins and the Cannondale 3.0
| and 2.8 were the first to really crank the dial on
| stiffness, when a lot of the other bikes were running
| normal or +1 oversized tubes.
|
| They were super harsh because they were aiming for
| stiffness, and the material allowed them to do that.
| zwkrt wrote:
| In bike messenger circles there is a phrase "steel is real".
| The idea being that when you inevitably eat shit going around a
| corner you might dent your frame, but the chances that a steel
| frame will crack or shatter is basically zero. And more
| importantly dings and scratches don't cause the structural
| integrity to degrade like happens with aluminum or carbon
| fiber. Your steel fork is bent? Hit it with a hammer until it's
| true again!
| Scoundreller wrote:
| Also applies to fixing steel wheels. Can slam them against
| the ground, hammer them, and step on them to bend them back
| into shape without losing as much strength as one would on
| aluminum.
| joe_the_user wrote:
| Aside from being absurdly heavy, steel wheels are dangerous
| since they become extremely slippery to brake shoes in rain
| or wet conditions. I don't think steel rims are common any
| more - or at least they shouldn't be unless you use disk
| brakes or something.
| whalesalad wrote:
| I'm guessing this person might be referring to steel
| car/truck wheels? A lot of serious crawlers/off-roaders
| prefer steel wheels because 1. they are cheap and easy to
| fix/replace, 2. they are easy to weld on beadlocks, and
| 3. you can definitely repair them out on the trail with a
| hammer.
| soulofmischief wrote:
| Oh, I wish. Unfortunately a nasty accident bent my steel tube
| beyond repair due to structural integrity concerns, and I
| still have yet to find a bike I've felt so at one with...
| This one was an early 80's Schwinn before the Chicago plant
| shut down and it's hard to find the exact kind I like.
| analog31 wrote:
| There's nothing like those lugged Schwinn frames for
| building beaters. There was a period when some were built
| in Mississippi, and others in Japan. I've got a couple of
| those frames, and they're a great raw material.
| soulofmischief wrote:
| They simply do not make them like they used to. Not after
| '83. Those frames were a real triumph of human
| engineering.
| leetrout wrote:
| What would it take to make them again?
|
| Would it just cost too much?
| smm11 wrote:
| Buy the 1972 model I have.
| analog31 wrote:
| I think lack of demand, and a fragmenting of the
| component standards, are hurdles. Those old Schwinn (and
| other brand) frames were made during a time period when
| there was a lot of interchangeability, and most spare
| parts are still available. Today, standards for things
| like bottom brackets change every three years. There's no
| part on my 1985 frame, that I can't replace today,
| cheaply.
|
| I can get a brand new lugged steel frame that would be
| perfect for my use -- a Surly Cross-Check. Seriously the
| only deterrent is a minor injury has forced me to re-
| think what my future needs are for geometry. I may need
| to adopt a more "comfort" posture. Better than not
| riding. Sucks to get old.
|
| Despite my above comment, and thinking about it more, I
| want my next bike to be modern in the sense of
| accommodating fenders and much wider tires. I need
| horizontal dropouts and to be able to set the rear
| dropout spacing, to accommodate an internal gear hub
| (IGH).
| jjtheblunt wrote:
| traveler or le tour? i had a traveler from 1981, until
| around 1996 when it was stolen off a bike rack on campus
| despite being locked up.
| max_k wrote:
| A year ago, my titanium fork broke (while driving rather
| slowly on good tarmac, photo here
| https://twitter.com/dothebart/status/1486765955254530051),
| and the titanium frame got a few cracks as well. My motto
| "the last bike I'll ever buy" collided with reality.
| Fortunately, I got away with just a few scratches - just a
| minute later, I would have been at 60+ kph downhill. My new
| bike has a steel frame. I love it, but titanium was more
| flexible and more comfortable. And of course titanium is
| nerdier! :-)
| kasey_junk wrote:
| Did the manufacturer provide an explanation? A sheer (which
| that looks like) should be near impossible on any properly
| manufactured bicycle under normal usage.
| max_k wrote:
| No. I got a full refund, though. Most importantly, I'm so
| extremely happy I'm still alive, I don't care about
| anything else.
| giuliomagnifico wrote:
| Woaa horror story, what a luck that you didn't get hurt!
|
| Anyway it's weird because it doesn't look broken on a weld,
| very rare situation, titanium should last forever.
| jupp0r wrote:
| Glad you're ok. I wish the anti helmet crowd from the
| Netherlands from a different thread 2 weeks ago would read
| this.
| kqr wrote:
| I don't think any "anti helmet crowd" would claim that
| helmets never ever help. Just that it's rare enough that
| it may not be worth the inconvenience.
|
| After all, are you strapping on a helmet while you're out
| walking, or driving a car? Sometimes, very rarely, that
| could be what saves your life.
| max_k wrote:
| Oh, bike helmets. I missed that thread, and I don't want
| to start yet another endless internet discussion about
| helmets, but let me point out one thing: the helmet I did
| wear likely wouldn't have saved my life, had the fork
| breakage happened one minute later.
| Xylakant wrote:
| The "anti helmet crowd" wouldn't have any issue reading
| be this. Wearing helmets when you're on a sports bike is
| very common in the Netherlands. It's just not common on
| Dutch commuters cycles, but then again, these do not have
| this failure mode. Sports bikes in general have much less
| margin for failure, and thus fail more often and
| catastrophic than a solid steel bike.
| jupp0r wrote:
| Right, all commuter bikes are made of solid steel and
| steel bikes never break. Got it.
| Xylakant wrote:
| Typical Dutch commuter bikes are made of steel. And yes,
| steel breaks, but the failure mode of a solid steel fork
| is much much different from a titanium, aluminum or
| carbon fork. They bend, crack and at some point break,
| but they'll typically not snap like this because steel is
| much less brittle than any of those materials.
|
| Also, speed matters. Going 15 or 50 when the thing breaks
| makes a difference.
| ralfd wrote:
| I thought titan would keep good for a life time?
| max_k wrote:
| ... yes, that's what they say about titanium, why I
| decided to pay the price, but turns out it's not true.
| whalesalad wrote:
| I came here to say the same thing - "steel is real" is
| totally true. I did have a Bianchi Pista Concept that was
| probably my favorite bike of all time, but a no-name steel
| fixed gear bike that I owned got way more miles and was far
| more comfortable. The carbon fork on the pista concept
| helped, but all-in-all it was a performance machine and not a
| comfortable one.
|
| Anecdotally, and I know the cab material is not the only
| difference, my RAM 1500 is leaps and bounds more comfortable
| and pleasant to be in than my F-150. The RAM has a steel
| body, whereas the F-150 is very light/rigid aluminum. The
| steel cab does much better with absorbing the energy/sound
| from the road.
| LesZedCB wrote:
| CyclingAbout has an amazing video on frame stiffness
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5f8PGpKUKro
|
| i guess it makes sense when this article is talking about road
| bikes, but in MTB and gravel bikes, where geometry is so much
| more malleable, the geometry plays such a huge role in stiffness,
| almost independent of material.
|
| you can have a crazy stiff steel bike (e.g. kona honzo esd) or a
| crazy compliant carbon bike.
| dboreham wrote:
| This takes me back. My Dad was an amateur road racer and time-
| trialer, and also an engineer. So of course he designed his own
| frame geometry and would talk at length about stiffness. Back in
| the days of Reynolds steel tubing this was. No fancy carbon
| fiber.
| [deleted]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-12-21 23:02 UTC)