#1
|
|||
|
|||
On frame stiffness
https://cyclingtips.com/2017/06/cycl...ffness-matter/
Interesting that some pros want a less stiff frame early season, and more stiff frame later in the season. Other interesting bits too. -- JS |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
On frame stiffness
On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 7:56:58 PM UTC-7, James wrote:
https://cyclingtips.com/2017/06/cycl...ffness-matter/ Interesting that some pros want a less stiff frame early season, and more stiff frame later in the season. Other interesting bits too. Well, if you're flexing a frame and getting power back that's fine. But at the same time there are frictional loses and you're only getting back a portion of it. There was a noticeable difference between riding a Colnago Dream with carbon forks and the Colnago C40. The C40 was stiff and I had to pedal complete circles on a hard climb or the bike would stop at the point of one down stroke to the next. The Dream did it less. A steel bike absolutely does not do this. Now there may be a preference about one way or another but I don't believe so. I think that this really is something that works better and while I haven't said anything to the group I generally ride with most of them are returning to steel. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
On frame stiffness
On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 7:09:56 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 7:56:58 PM UTC-7, James wrote: https://cyclingtips.com/2017/06/cycl...ffness-matter/ Interesting that some pros want a less stiff frame early season, and more stiff frame later in the season. Other interesting bits too. Well, if you're flexing a frame and getting power back that's fine. But at the same time there are frictional loses and you're only getting back a portion of it. There was a noticeable difference between riding a Colnago Dream with carbon forks and the Colnago C40. The C40 was stiff and I had to pedal complete circles on a hard climb or the bike would stop at the point of one down stroke to the next. The Dream did it less. A steel bike absolutely does not do this. Now there may be a preference about one way or another but I don't believe so. I think that this really is something that works better and while I haven't said anything to the group I generally ride with most of them are returning to steel. The podcast is all about BB stiffness which is just one aspect of frame stiffness. Of course a soft frame is an energy sponge. Try sprinting on a double-suspended mountain bike. Small difference in BB stiffness between racing bikes, however, probably makes little difference. I'm far more sensitive to front-end stiffness than BB stiffness. I had a first-gen Cannondale 2.8 with aluminum forks that was like sprinting on a pogo stick. I wanted to throw it away after my first race on it but instead bought a pair of Kestrel forks which rode a lot like steel (they had a steel steerer). I had a custom steel sport-touring frame that rode the same way -- lots of slop. My last steel racing bike was very stiff, but when I resurrected it last and used it as my winter bike, it was not magical in any way.. The top-tube was too short; it was heavy and probably less "planing" than my CAAD 3. What steel has going for it is resistance to mechanical damage.. This whole steel-is-magical thing reminds me of going back to vinyl and realizing how many bad recordings there are. It's more about the implementation than the material. -- Jay Beattie. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
On frame stiffness
On 07/06/17 08:03, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 7:09:56 AM UTC-7, wrote: On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 7:56:58 PM UTC-7, James wrote: https://cyclingtips.com/2017/06/cycl...ffness-matter/ Interesting that some pros want a less stiff frame early season, and more stiff frame later in the season. Other interesting bits too. Well, if you're flexing a frame and getting power back that's fine. But at the same time there are frictional loses and you're only getting back a portion of it. There was a noticeable difference between riding a Colnago Dream with carbon forks and the Colnago C40. The C40 was stiff and I had to pedal complete circles on a hard climb or the bike would stop at the point of one down stroke to the next. The Dream did it less. A steel bike absolutely does not do this. Now there may be a preference about one way or another but I don't believe so. I think that this really is something that works better and while I haven't said anything to the group I generally ride with most of them are returning to steel. The podcast is all about BB stiffness which is just one aspect of frame stiffness. Of course a soft frame is an energy sponge. Try sprinting on a double-suspended mountain bike. Small difference in BB stiffness between racing bikes, however, probably makes little difference. Dual suspension MTB is a totally different beast. It has built in energy absorbers (shock absorbers). Rigid frames do not. I'm far more sensitive to front-end stiffness than BB stiffness. I had a first-gen Cannondale 2.8 with aluminum forks that was like sprinting on a pogo stick. I wanted to throw it away after my first race on it but instead bought a pair of Kestrel forks which rode a lot like steel (they had a steel steerer). I had a custom steel sport-touring frame that rode the same way -- lots of slop. My last steel racing bike was very stiff, but when I resurrected it last and used it as my winter bike, it was not magical in any way. The top-tube was too short; it was heavy and probably less "planing" than my CAAD 3. What steel has going for it is resistance to mechanical damage. With thin walled tubes (0.4mm & below), not even that. This whole steel-is-magical thing reminds me of going back to vinyl and realizing how many bad recordings there are. It's more about the implementation than the material. I agree. -- JS |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
On frame stiffness
On Wed, 7 Jun 2017 09:34:58 +1000, James
wrote: On 07/06/17 08:03, jbeattie wrote: On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 7:09:56 AM UTC-7, wrote: On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 7:56:58 PM UTC-7, James wrote: https://cyclingtips.com/2017/06/cycl...ffness-matter/ Interesting that some pros want a less stiff frame early season, and more stiff frame later in the season. Other interesting bits too. Well, if you're flexing a frame and getting power back that's fine. But at the same time there are frictional loses and you're only getting back a portion of it. There was a noticeable difference between riding a Colnago Dream with carbon forks and the Colnago C40. The C40 was stiff and I had to pedal complete circles on a hard climb or the bike would stop at the point of one down stroke to the next. The Dream did it less. A steel bike absolutely does not do this. Now there may be a preference about one way or another but I don't believe so. I think that this really is something that works better and while I haven't said anything to the group I generally ride with most of them are returning to steel. The podcast is all about BB stiffness which is just one aspect of frame stiffness. Of course a soft frame is an energy sponge. Try sprinting on a double-suspended mountain bike. Small difference in BB stiffness between racing bikes, however, probably makes little difference. Dual suspension MTB is a totally different beast. It has built in energy absorbers (shock absorbers). Rigid frames do not. I'm far more sensitive to front-end stiffness than BB stiffness. I had a first-gen Cannondale 2.8 with aluminum forks that was like sprinting on a pogo stick. I wanted to throw it away after my first race on it but instead bought a pair of Kestrel forks which rode a lot like steel (they had a steel steerer). I had a custom steel sport-touring frame that rode the same way -- lots of slop. My last steel racing bike was very stiff, but when I resurrected it last and used it as my winter bike, it was not magical in any way. The top-tube was too short; it was heavy and probably less "planing" than my CAAD 3. What steel has going for it is resistance to mechanical damage. With thin walled tubes (0.4mm & below), not even that. This whole steel-is-magical thing reminds me of going back to vinyl and realizing how many bad recordings there are. It's more about the implementation than the material. I agree. One of the things I've always wondered about when people start talking about BB flex. It would be a relatively simple problem to built a steel frame bike with gussets of bracing for the BB, but no one seems to have. Looking at Eddie Marckx, Sean Kelly or any of the other top riders of the "steel Era" and none of their bikes seemed to have any visible BB bracing. -- Cheers, John B. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
On frame stiffness
On 6/7/2017 12:13 AM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jun 2017 09:34:58 +1000, James wrote: On 07/06/17 08:03, jbeattie wrote: On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 7:09:56 AM UTC-7, wrote: On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 7:56:58 PM UTC-7, James wrote: https://cyclingtips.com/2017/06/cycl...ffness-matter/ Interesting that some pros want a less stiff frame early season, and more stiff frame later in the season. Other interesting bits too. Well, if you're flexing a frame and getting power back that's fine. But at the same time there are frictional loses and you're only getting back a portion of it. There was a noticeable difference between riding a Colnago Dream with carbon forks and the Colnago C40. The C40 was stiff and I had to pedal complete circles on a hard climb or the bike would stop at the point of one down stroke to the next. The Dream did it less. A steel bike absolutely does not do this. Now there may be a preference about one way or another but I don't believe so. I think that this really is something that works better and while I haven't said anything to the group I generally ride with most of them are returning to steel. The podcast is all about BB stiffness which is just one aspect of frame stiffness. Of course a soft frame is an energy sponge. Try sprinting on a double-suspended mountain bike. Small difference in BB stiffness between racing bikes, however, probably makes little difference. Dual suspension MTB is a totally different beast. It has built in energy absorbers (shock absorbers). Rigid frames do not. I'm far more sensitive to front-end stiffness than BB stiffness. I had a first-gen Cannondale 2.8 with aluminum forks that was like sprinting on a pogo stick. I wanted to throw it away after my first race on it but instead bought a pair of Kestrel forks which rode a lot like steel (they had a steel steerer). I had a custom steel sport-touring frame that rode the same way -- lots of slop. My last steel racing bike was very stiff, but when I resurrected it last and used it as my winter bike, it was not magical in any way. The top-tube was too short; it was heavy and probably less "planing" than my CAAD 3. What steel has going for it is resistance to mechanical damage. With thin walled tubes (0.4mm & below), not even that. This whole steel-is-magical thing reminds me of going back to vinyl and realizing how many bad recordings there are. It's more about the implementation than the material. I agree. One of the things I've always wondered about when people start talking about BB flex. It would be a relatively simple problem to built a steel frame bike with gussets of bracing for the BB, but no one seems to have. Looking at Eddie Marckx, Sean Kelly or any of the other top riders of the "steel Era" and none of their bikes seemed to have any visible BB bracing. Yoshi Konno of 3Rensho, c.1990: https://www.pedalroom.com/bike/3rensho-njs-chrome-6748 The linking is odd so in that series go to the BB photo. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
On frame stiffness
On Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 5:28:46 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/7/2017 12:13 AM, John B. wrote: On Wed, 7 Jun 2017 09:34:58 +1000, James wrote: On 07/06/17 08:03, jbeattie wrote: On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 7:09:56 AM UTC-7, wrote: On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 7:56:58 PM UTC-7, James wrote: https://cyclingtips.com/2017/06/cycl...ffness-matter/ Interesting that some pros want a less stiff frame early season, and more stiff frame later in the season. Other interesting bits too. Well, if you're flexing a frame and getting power back that's fine. But at the same time there are frictional loses and you're only getting back a portion of it. There was a noticeable difference between riding a Colnago Dream with carbon forks and the Colnago C40. The C40 was stiff and I had to pedal complete circles on a hard climb or the bike would stop at the point of one down stroke to the next. The Dream did it less. A steel bike absolutely does not do this. Now there may be a preference about one way or another but I don't believe so. I think that this really is something that works better and while I haven't said anything to the group I generally ride with most of them are returning to steel. The podcast is all about BB stiffness which is just one aspect of frame stiffness. Of course a soft frame is an energy sponge. Try sprinting on a double-suspended mountain bike. Small difference in BB stiffness between racing bikes, however, probably makes little difference. Dual suspension MTB is a totally different beast. It has built in energy absorbers (shock absorbers). Rigid frames do not. I'm far more sensitive to front-end stiffness than BB stiffness. I had a first-gen Cannondale 2.8 with aluminum forks that was like sprinting on a pogo stick. I wanted to throw it away after my first race on it but instead bought a pair of Kestrel forks which rode a lot like steel (they had a steel steerer). I had a custom steel sport-touring frame that rode the same way -- lots of slop. My last steel racing bike was very stiff, but when I resurrected it last and used it as my winter bike, it was not magical in any way. The top-tube was too short; it was heavy and probably less "planing" than my CAAD 3. What steel has going for it is resistance to mechanical damage. With thin walled tubes (0.4mm & below), not even that. This whole steel-is-magical thing reminds me of going back to vinyl and realizing how many bad recordings there are. It's more about the implementation than the material. I agree. One of the things I've always wondered about when people start talking about BB flex. It would be a relatively simple problem to built a steel frame bike with gussets of bracing for the BB, but no one seems to have. Looking at Eddie Marckx, Sean Kelly or any of the other top riders of the "steel Era" and none of their bikes seemed to have any visible BB bracing. Yoshi Konno of 3Rensho, c.1990: https://www.pedalroom.com/bike/3rensho-njs-chrome-6748 The linking is odd so in that series go to the BB photo. The Serotta Colorado used an ovalized seat tube at the BB to add stiffness. That was '86-87. Earlier steel frames also used chain stay bridges. If you wanted a super-stiff BB after the late '70s early '80s, you bought a Klein or Cannondale, assuming you could handle the aesthetic shock of fat tubes. -- Jay Beattie. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
On frame stiffness
On Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 10:20:13 AM UTC-4, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 5:28:46 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote: On 6/7/2017 12:13 AM, John B. wrote: On Wed, 7 Jun 2017 09:34:58 +1000, James wrote: On 07/06/17 08:03, jbeattie wrote: On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 7:09:56 AM UTC-7, wrote: On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 7:56:58 PM UTC-7, James wrote: https://cyclingtips.com/2017/06/cycl...ffness-matter/ Interesting that some pros want a less stiff frame early season, and more stiff frame later in the season. Other interesting bits too. Well, if you're flexing a frame and getting power back that's fine.. But at the same time there are frictional loses and you're only getting back a portion of it. There was a noticeable difference between riding a Colnago Dream with carbon forks and the Colnago C40. The C40 was stiff and I had to pedal complete circles on a hard climb or the bike would stop at the point of one down stroke to the next. The Dream did it less. A steel bike absolutely does not do this. Now there may be a preference about one way or another but I don't believe so. I think that this really is something that works better and while I haven't said anything to the group I generally ride with most of them are returning to steel. The podcast is all about BB stiffness which is just one aspect of frame stiffness. Of course a soft frame is an energy sponge. Try sprinting on a double-suspended mountain bike. Small difference in BB stiffness between racing bikes, however, probably makes little difference. Dual suspension MTB is a totally different beast. It has built in energy absorbers (shock absorbers). Rigid frames do not. I'm far more sensitive to front-end stiffness than BB stiffness. I had a first-gen Cannondale 2.8 with aluminum forks that was like sprinting on a pogo stick. I wanted to throw it away after my first race on it but instead bought a pair of Kestrel forks which rode a lot like steel (they had a steel steerer). I had a custom steel sport-touring frame that rode the same way -- lots of slop. My last steel racing bike was very stiff, but when I resurrected it last and used it as my winter bike, it was not magical in any way. The top-tube was too short; it was heavy and probably less "planing" than my CAAD 3. What steel has going for it is resistance to mechanical damage. With thin walled tubes (0.4mm & below), not even that. This whole steel-is-magical thing reminds me of going back to vinyl and realizing how many bad recordings there are. It's more about the implementation than the material. I agree. One of the things I've always wondered about when people start talking about BB flex. It would be a relatively simple problem to built a steel frame bike with gussets of bracing for the BB, but no one seems to have. Looking at Eddie Marckx, Sean Kelly or any of the other top riders of the "steel Era" and none of their bikes seemed to have any visible BB bracing. Yoshi Konno of 3Rensho, c.1990: https://www.pedalroom.com/bike/3rensho-njs-chrome-6748 The linking is odd so in that series go to the BB photo. The Serotta Colorado used an ovalized seat tube at the BB to add stiffness. That was '86-87. Earlier steel frames also used chain stay bridges. If you wanted a super-stiff BB after the late '70s early '80s, you bought a Klein or Cannondale, assuming you could handle the aesthetic shock of fat tubes. -- Jay Beattie. My old road bicycle Cannondale was a right royal pain to ride and I mean that literally. I've NEVER had a bike before or since that punished the rider like that thing did. Ride over a crack in the asphalt and that bike felt like someone was driving their fist into your kidneys. Even going to 700C x 30mm tires didn't help much. I got rid of that bike and kept my Tange Infinity frame bike instead. YMMV Cheers |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
On frame stiffness
On Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 10:39:30 AM UTC-7, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 10:20:13 AM UTC-4, jbeattie wrote: On Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 5:28:46 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote: On 6/7/2017 12:13 AM, John B. wrote: On Wed, 7 Jun 2017 09:34:58 +1000, James wrote: On 07/06/17 08:03, jbeattie wrote: On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 7:09:56 AM UTC-7, wrote: On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 7:56:58 PM UTC-7, James wrote: https://cyclingtips.com/2017/06/cycl...ffness-matter/ Interesting that some pros want a less stiff frame early season, and more stiff frame later in the season. Other interesting bits too. Well, if you're flexing a frame and getting power back that's fine. But at the same time there are frictional loses and you're only getting back a portion of it. There was a noticeable difference between riding a Colnago Dream with carbon forks and the Colnago C40. The C40 was stiff and I had to pedal complete circles on a hard climb or the bike would stop at the point of one down stroke to the next. The Dream did it less. A steel bike absolutely does not do this. Now there may be a preference about one way or another but I don't believe so. I think that this really is something that works better and while I haven't said anything to the group I generally ride with most of them are returning to steel. The podcast is all about BB stiffness which is just one aspect of frame stiffness. Of course a soft frame is an energy sponge. Try sprinting on a double-suspended mountain bike. Small difference in BB stiffness between racing bikes, however, probably makes little difference. Dual suspension MTB is a totally different beast. It has built in energy absorbers (shock absorbers). Rigid frames do not. I'm far more sensitive to front-end stiffness than BB stiffness. I had a first-gen Cannondale 2.8 with aluminum forks that was like sprinting on a pogo stick. I wanted to throw it away after my first race on it but instead bought a pair of Kestrel forks which rode a lot like steel (they had a steel steerer). I had a custom steel sport-touring frame that rode the same way -- lots of slop. My last steel racing bike was very stiff, but when I resurrected it last and used it as my winter bike, it was not magical in any way. The top-tube was too short; it was heavy and probably less "planing" than my CAAD 3. What steel has going for it is resistance to mechanical damage. With thin walled tubes (0.4mm & below), not even that. This whole steel-is-magical thing reminds me of going back to vinyl and realizing how many bad recordings there are. It's more about the implementation than the material. I agree. One of the things I've always wondered about when people start talking about BB flex. It would be a relatively simple problem to built a steel frame bike with gussets of bracing for the BB, but no one seems to have. Looking at Eddie Marckx, Sean Kelly or any of the other top riders of the "steel Era" and none of their bikes seemed to have any visible BB bracing. Yoshi Konno of 3Rensho, c.1990: https://www.pedalroom.com/bike/3rensho-njs-chrome-6748 The linking is odd so in that series go to the BB photo. The Serotta Colorado used an ovalized seat tube at the BB to add stiffness. That was '86-87. Earlier steel frames also used chain stay bridges. If you wanted a super-stiff BB after the late '70s early '80s, you bought a Klein or Cannondale, assuming you could handle the aesthetic shock of fat tubes. -- Jay Beattie. My old road bicycle Cannondale was a right royal pain to ride and I mean that literally. I've NEVER had a bike before or since that punished the rider like that thing did. Ride over a crack in the asphalt and that bike felt like someone was driving their fist into your kidneys. Even going to 700C x 30mm tires didn't help much. I got rid of that bike and kept my Tange Infinity frame bike instead. YMMV Cheers My Colnago Dream Reflux and Deluxe both had the same problem. That could break your back. But my Time VXR made those Colnagos seem like full suspension bikes. It was literally unrideable on anything other than perfectly smooth pavement. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
On frame stiffness
On Wed, 7 Jun 2017 07:20:09 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote: On Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 5:28:46 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote: On 6/7/2017 12:13 AM, John B. wrote: On Wed, 7 Jun 2017 09:34:58 +1000, James wrote: On 07/06/17 08:03, jbeattie wrote: On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 7:09:56 AM UTC-7, wrote: On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 7:56:58 PM UTC-7, James wrote: https://cyclingtips.com/2017/06/cycl...ffness-matter/ Interesting that some pros want a less stiff frame early season, and more stiff frame later in the season. Other interesting bits too. Well, if you're flexing a frame and getting power back that's fine. But at the same time there are frictional loses and you're only getting back a portion of it. There was a noticeable difference between riding a Colnago Dream with carbon forks and the Colnago C40. The C40 was stiff and I had to pedal complete circles on a hard climb or the bike would stop at the point of one down stroke to the next. The Dream did it less. A steel bike absolutely does not do this. Now there may be a preference about one way or another but I don't believe so. I think that this really is something that works better and while I haven't said anything to the group I generally ride with most of them are returning to steel. The podcast is all about BB stiffness which is just one aspect of frame stiffness. Of course a soft frame is an energy sponge. Try sprinting on a double-suspended mountain bike. Small difference in BB stiffness between racing bikes, however, probably makes little difference. Dual suspension MTB is a totally different beast. It has built in energy absorbers (shock absorbers). Rigid frames do not. I'm far more sensitive to front-end stiffness than BB stiffness. I had a first-gen Cannondale 2.8 with aluminum forks that was like sprinting on a pogo stick. I wanted to throw it away after my first race on it but instead bought a pair of Kestrel forks which rode a lot like steel (they had a steel steerer). I had a custom steel sport-touring frame that rode the same way -- lots of slop. My last steel racing bike was very stiff, but when I resurrected it last and used it as my winter bike, it was not magical in any way. The top-tube was too short; it was heavy and probably less "planing" than my CAAD 3. What steel has going for it is resistance to mechanical damage. With thin walled tubes (0.4mm & below), not even that. This whole steel-is-magical thing reminds me of going back to vinyl and realizing how many bad recordings there are. It's more about the implementation than the material. I agree. One of the things I've always wondered about when people start talking about BB flex. It would be a relatively simple problem to built a steel frame bike with gussets of bracing for the BB, but no one seems to have. Looking at Eddie Marckx, Sean Kelly or any of the other top riders of the "steel Era" and none of their bikes seemed to have any visible BB bracing. Yoshi Konno of 3Rensho, c.1990: https://www.pedalroom.com/bike/3rensho-njs-chrome-6748 The linking is odd so in that series go to the BB photo. The Serotta Colorado used an ovalized seat tube at the BB to add stiffness. That was '86-87. Earlier steel frames also used chain stay bridges. If you wanted a super-stiff BB after the late '70s early '80s, you bought a Klein or Cannondale, assuming you could handle the aesthetic shock of fat tubes. -- Jay Beattie. But that was one or two bicycles. I'm looking at bikes ridden by top riders, I mentioned Eddie Marckx, Sean Kelly, et al, and I don't see any frame stiffeners or wide tubes on bikes shown in photos of the top rider of that era. In fact, based on memory - always a questionable practice - I don't remember a lot of talk about frame stiffness until about the time that Cannondale started selling aluminum bikes. . -- Cheers, John B. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Bicycle Frame Stiffness | bicycle_disciple | Techniques | 9 | January 9th 10 06:40 PM |
Frame Stiffness - What Does It Affect | Phil Holman | Techniques | 14 | January 21st 08 05:06 AM |
Question about frame/fork stiffness | holdmybeerandwatchthis | Techniques | 11 | April 30th 07 09:01 PM |
Seat post stiffness: Compact frame geometry | SteveT | Techniques | 5 | December 29th 06 03:28 PM |
VeloNews on Frame Stiffness | 41 | Techniques | 28 | August 11th 06 02:56 PM |