A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

On frame stiffness



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 6th 17, 03:56 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
James[_8_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,153
Default 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  
Old June 6th 17, 03:09 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,345
Default 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  
Old June 6th 17, 11:03 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,870
Default 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  
Old June 7th 17, 12:34 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
James[_8_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,153
Default 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  
Old June 7th 17, 06:13 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,697
Default 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  
Old June 7th 17, 01:28 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
AMuzi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,447
Default 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  
Old June 7th 17, 03:20 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,870
Default 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  
Old June 7th 17, 06:39 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Sir Ridesalot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,270
Default 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  
Old June 7th 17, 08:50 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,345
Default 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  
Old June 8th 17, 04:17 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,697
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:15 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.