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

Steel is Real and Carbon is Lighter



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old June 19th 19, 07:18 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default Steel is Real and Carbon is Lighter

On 6/19/2019 10:25 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, June 18, 2019 at 8:06:37 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/18/2019 1:24 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, June 18, 2019 at 9:49:50 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

For ordinary riding? No, most tiny improvements make no noticeable
difference. Even though we all know the near-magic power of red paint.


What is a "tiny improvement"? The frame on my Emonda probably weighs less than the Columbus steel forks off my last custom racing bike. Those things were suitable for clubbing baby harp seals or home defense. Weight and stiffness do matter when climbing. If we're talking about aero bits, that's harder call -- except that dopes on aero bars riding in packs can result in a massive worsening of your riding experience. Wearing aero shoe covers may keep your feet warmer on chilly mornings, which might make you faster. It all adds up.


Stiffness probably does not make a detectable difference, unless the
frame is so flexible that things are scraping. Remember the discussion
we had about the bike magazine's test of modern stiff CF frames vs.
older, heavier steel frames? The test riders gushed about how the
stiffness improved their climbing, but the math showed the speed
difference was precisely what would be predicted by the weight difference.

Weight matters when climbing. If getting to the top of the hill before
your buddy is really, really important, a lighter bike will help by
whatever the percent difference in total bike+rider weight. If a 160
pound rider changes his 20 pound bike for an 18 pound bike, he should be
about 1% faster up a steep hill. Whoopee!


Make that a 5lb weight difference. You need to borrow a well-fitting modern 15lb racing bike with an appropriate gear range and then do a long ride with lots of hills. It's not a subtle or imagined difference compared to a T1000 or old-school steel sport touring bike, particularly if you're trying to keep up with others.


Again, I'm not saying the weight doesn't make a difference! The
difference it makes on an uphill is the percentage difference in
bike+rider weight.

Does nobody remember the discussion a couple years ago where the
magazine article's data proved that? They put young racers on modern CF
bikes, then on 1980s steel racing bikes and timed them up long hills.
The speed difference was exactly what the weight difference predicted.

Think about changing to a bike that was five pounds lighter, but then
strapped a five pound weight around your waist. Hopefully people here
wouldn't think you'd still be way faster up the hills, right?

And again, the stiffness, the snappiness, the magical handling of a CF
bike made no difference at all in that comparison test. There were other
details the youngsters liked on the new bikes - as in "I was afraid to
take my hands off the hoods to shift" - but the speed difference was
apparently due to the weight.

If others think there's some other energy savings or power increase,
please explain it in engineering or scientific terms. Explain how it's
not magic.

--
- Frank Krygowski
Ads
  #52  
Old June 19th 19, 07:27 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default Steel is Real and Carbon is Lighter

On 6/19/2019 1:48 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 12:49:48 PM UTC-4, duane wrote:


5lbs? My Tarmac is probably closer to 12 lbs lighter than my cro moly
Volpe.


I hear you, my Scott CR1 is 7 pounds lighter than my Merlin Road - with the same wheels.


And no in reality it's not a subtle or imagined difference. And no,
it's not just about weight unless everything else is exactly the same.


The difference in overall performance between a decent carbon racing frame and even an exceptionally well-made steel racing frame is striking. The acceleration is startlingly quicker, the handling/cornering is more precise and quicker. The ride feels nearly as compliant, not enough difference such that a five hour ride leaves you feeling any more fatigued. IT simply comes alive with any real effort. This may come across as more of something that is only of interest to racers, but it isn't. My CR1 is a joy to ride, as much as I realize the Tarmac is to those who have enough experience to understand it.


Differences in acceleration are a little more complicated than
differences in climbing speed, but not much. When accelerating, you've
got to generate not only the translational acceleration of the entire
bike; you've also got to generate the rotational acceleration of the
wheels and tires. But the latter is quite a small portion of your total
effort. If you put your bike on a workstand, you can give the wheels
that acceleration value using one finger on a spoke. It's barely a blip
compared to accelerating 160 - 200 pounds of bike+rider.

Rigidity of the frame feels nice when accelerating, and I suppose it may
make some difference. But I'm not aware of tests proving it's significant.

Overall, when someone is convinced that a design aspect of their bike
makes them faster, we should have a way of determining it's not just a
placebo effect, or an imaginary effect. Psychology is powerful in athletics.

Has anyone done a before-after test on a bike that got painted red?


--
- Frank Krygowski
  #53  
Old June 19th 19, 09:27 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
SMS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,477
Default Steel is Real and Carbon is Lighter

On 6/18/2019 10:24 AM, jbeattie wrote:

snip

What is a "tiny improvement"? The frame on my Emonda probably weighs less than the Columbus steel forks off my last custom racing bike. Those things were suitable for clubbing baby harp seals or home defense. Weight and stiffness do matter when climbing. If we're talking about aero bits, that's harder call -- except that dopes on aero bars riding in packs can result in a massive worsening of your riding experience. Wearing aero shoe covers may keep your feet warmer on chilly mornings, which might make you faster. It all adds up.


But it isn't just weight.

There is a significant performance difference between a well-made steel
racing frame and a carbon-fiber frame. The steel frame handles and
corners better and of course will last much longer. The lower weight of
the carbon-fiber frame, as well as all the other carbon-fiber pieces, is
the appeal to racers of carbon.

To non-racers, a decent carbon-fiber frame costs much less than a
well-made steel frame, though if you buy a complete bicycle the cost of
a high-end carbon-fiber equipped bicycle from a top-tier manufacturer
that provides a warranty, is comparable to that of a handmade steel or
titanium frame bicycle. And of course you could always use a
carbon-fiber form on a custom steel racing frame.



  #54  
Old June 19th 19, 09:52 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Sir Ridesalot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,270
Default Steel is Real and Carbon is Lighter

On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 2:18:52 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/19/2019 10:25 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, June 18, 2019 at 8:06:37 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/18/2019 1:24 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, June 18, 2019 at 9:49:50 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

For ordinary riding? No, most tiny improvements make no noticeable
difference. Even though we all know the near-magic power of red paint.

  #55  
Old June 19th 19, 10:06 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,041
Default Steel is Real and Carbon is Lighter

On Tuesday, June 18, 2019 at 10:14:59 PM UTC-5, Sir Ridesalot wrote:

Thus they might want the lightest equipment or they might want a lighter bike so they can carry something extra like perhaps more water or electrolyte drinks without having an overall weight gain.


???? Come on. I think you know dam well the real world does not work that way. If a person has an ultralight bike, they will run small bottles and maybe only ONE bottle to reduce weight as much as possible. There ain't no extra bottles being carried. People who carry extra bottles use those Salsa bikes with water bottle cages mounted on the fork legs. Or Surly Long Haul Truckers with the third water bottle mount under the downtube. People who carry extra water are riding "retro" bikes.
  #56  
Old June 19th 19, 11:10 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,041
Default Steel is Real and Carbon is Lighter

On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 3:27:59 PM UTC-5, sms wrote:

But it isn't just weight.

There is a significant performance difference between a well-made steel
racing frame and a carbon-fiber frame.


Please give some factual, objective reasons for this mythical "significant performance difference" you cite. Other than frame/fork weight. Carbon will most likely be lighter in weight than a steel bicycle. And weight can make a difference in acceleration and climbing speed. Now I will give you the fact the fastest bicycle in the world (183.9mph) does appear to be a carbon KHS frame with a motorcycle shock fork on the front.

https://www.bicycling.com/news/a2328...-speed-record/

The steel frame handles and
corners better and of course will last much longer. The lower weight of
the carbon-fiber frame, as well as all the other carbon-fiber pieces, is
the appeal to racers of carbon.


Yes the generally lighter weight of carbon over steel is appealing to racers. But why do you think steel handles and corners better than carbon? Seems to me if all the frames are made with the same angles and lengths, handling should be equal regardless of weight. What magical property is in steel that allows it to stick to the road better than carbon? Lean more in turns. Make tighter turns. Float over the road surface?

And why do you think steel "will last much longer"? Steel can rust. Carbon doesn't. Steel bicycle tubes are very thin. Easy to dent and crumple. Carbon frame tubes probably thicker. I have a broken steel Don Walker bicycle frame hanging in my garage. He makes VERY high end custom steel frames.. Yet it broke.

https://www.donwalkercycles.com/
  #57  
Old June 19th 19, 11:37 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,041
Default Steel is Real and Carbon is Lighter

On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 3:52:30 PM UTC-5, Sir Ridesalot wrote:

Weight doesn't make a difference? News to me.

In 1984 I bought a MIELE BETA bicycle with Tange double-butted tubing and with a complete Shimano 600 groupset. A year or two later I bought a MIELE EQUIPE PRO with a Columbus SL frameset and with a complete Dura Ace groupset. Compared to the Beta the Equipe Pro climbed like a homesick angel, accelerated easier and in general took less energy to keep moving. I imagine that the difference a five to ten pounds lighter carbon fiber bicycle would be even more noticeable.


Tange International is one of the premier bicycle tubing manufacturers in the world. Their tubing is used in custom Keirin frames in Japan. They also make "cheaper" tubing for cheaper road bicycles. I suspect your first frame was made using the cheaper tubing. Compared to your second frame with lighter Columbus SL tubing. A high end tubing. Maybe 2-300 grams frame weight difference. Half pound. Shimano 600 was the predecessor of Ultegra today. It was likely 2-300 grams heavier than Dura Ace at the time you bought both. So you are talking about 1 to 1.25 pound difference in bicycle weights. Pretty small. Yet you seem to think one bike was far superior to the other. Maybe, but not based on weight. Weight was irrelevant for your bikes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tange_International_Co.
  #58  
Old June 19th 19, 11:45 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B. Slocomb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 547
Default Steel is Real and Carbon is Lighter

On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 14:27:00 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 6/19/2019 1:48 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 12:49:48 PM UTC-4, duane wrote:


5lbs? My Tarmac is probably closer to 12 lbs lighter than my cro moly
Volpe.


I hear you, my Scott CR1 is 7 pounds lighter than my Merlin Road - with the same wheels.


And no in reality it's not a subtle or imagined difference. And no,
it's not just about weight unless everything else is exactly the same.


The difference in overall performance between a decent carbon racing frame and even an exceptionally well-made steel racing frame is striking. The acceleration is startlingly quicker, the handling/cornering is more precise and quicker. The ride feels nearly as compliant, not enough difference such that a five hour ride leaves you feeling any more fatigued. IT simply comes alive with any real effort. This may come across as more of something that is only of interest to racers, but it isn't. My CR1 is a joy to ride, as much as I realize the Tarmac is to those who have enough experience to understand it.


Differences in acceleration are a little more complicated than
differences in climbing speed, but not much. When accelerating, you've
got to generate not only the translational acceleration of the entire
bike; you've also got to generate the rotational acceleration of the
wheels and tires. But the latter is quite a small portion of your total
effort. If you put your bike on a workstand, you can give the wheels
that acceleration value using one finger on a spoke. It's barely a blip
compared to accelerating 160 - 200 pounds of bike+rider.

Rigidity of the frame feels nice when accelerating, and I suppose it may
make some difference. But I'm not aware of tests proving it's significant.

Overall, when someone is convinced that a design aspect of their bike
makes them faster, we should have a way of determining it's not just a
placebo effect, or an imaginary effect. Psychology is powerful in athletics.

Has anyone done a before-after test on a bike that got painted red?


Good Lord! There is no need to make any tests to prove that red bikes
are faster. It is a known fact.

Just exactly like the fact that a bright white light on your bike
guarantees your safety. (particularly those sold by guerrilla sales
persons).


--

Cheers,

John B.
  #59  
Old June 19th 19, 11:47 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B. Slocomb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 547
Default Steel is Real and Carbon is Lighter

On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 13:52:28 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 2:18:52 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/19/2019 10:25 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, June 18, 2019 at 8:06:37 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/18/2019 1:24 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, June 18, 2019 at 9:49:50 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

For ordinary riding? No, most tiny improvements make no noticeable
difference. Even though we all know the near-magic power of red paint.


What is a "tiny improvement"? The frame on my Emonda probably weighs less than the Columbus steel forks off my last custom racing bike. Those things were suitable for clubbing baby harp seals or home defense. Weight and stiffness do matter when climbing. If we're talking about aero bits, that's harder call -- except that dopes on aero bars riding in packs can result in a massive worsening of your riding experience. Wearing aero shoe covers may keep your feet warmer on chilly mornings, which might make you faster. It all adds up.

Stiffness probably does not make a detectable difference, unless the
frame is so flexible that things are scraping. Remember the discussion
we had about the bike magazine's test of modern stiff CF frames vs.
older, heavier steel frames? The test riders gushed about how the
stiffness improved their climbing, but the math showed the speed
difference was precisely what would be predicted by the weight difference.

Weight matters when climbing. If getting to the top of the hill before
your buddy is really, really important, a lighter bike will help by
whatever the percent difference in total bike+rider weight. If a 160
pound rider changes his 20 pound bike for an 18 pound bike, he should be
about 1% faster up a steep hill. Whoopee!

Make that a 5lb weight difference. You need to borrow a well-fitting modern 15lb racing bike with an appropriate gear range and then do a long ride with lots of hills. It's not a subtle or imagined difference compared to a T1000 or old-school steel sport touring bike, particularly if you're trying to keep up with others.


Again, I'm not saying the weight doesn't make a difference! The
difference it makes on an uphill is the percentage difference in
bike+rider weight.

Does nobody remember the discussion a couple years ago where the
magazine article's data proved that? They put young racers on modern CF
bikes, then on 1980s steel racing bikes and timed them up long hills.
The speed difference was exactly what the weight difference predicted.

Think about changing to a bike that was five pounds lighter, but then
strapped a five pound weight around your waist. Hopefully people here
wouldn't think you'd still be way faster up the hills, right?

And again, the stiffness, the snappiness, the magical handling of a CF
bike made no difference at all in that comparison test. There were other
details the youngsters liked on the new bikes - as in "I was afraid to
take my hands off the hoods to shift" - but the speed difference was
apparently due to the weight.

If others think there's some other energy savings or power increase,
please explain it in engineering or scientific terms. Explain how it's
not magic.

--
- Frank Krygowski


Weight doesn't make a difference? News to me.

In 1984 I bought a MIELE BETA bicycle with Tange double-butted tubing and with a complete Shimano 600 groupset. A year or two later I bought a MIELE EQUIPE PRO with a Columbus SL frameset and with a complete Dura Ace groupset. Compared to the Beta the Equipe Pro climbed like a homesick angel, accelerated easier and in general took less energy to keep moving. I imagine that the difference a five to ten pounds lighter carbon fiber bicycle would be even more noticeable.

Cheers


Out of curiosity what was the actual weight of each bike as ridden?
--

Cheers,

John B.
  #60  
Old June 20th 19, 12:28 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Sir Ridesalot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,270
Default Steel is Real and Carbon is Lighter

On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 6:47:31 PM UTC-4, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 13:52:28 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 2:18:52 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/19/2019 10:25 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, June 18, 2019 at 8:06:37 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/18/2019 1:24 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, June 18, 2019 at 9:49:50 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

For ordinary riding? No, most tiny improvements make no noticeable
difference. Even though we all know the near-magic power of red paint.


What is a "tiny improvement"? The frame on my Emonda probably weighs less than the Columbus steel forks off my last custom racing bike. Those things were suitable for clubbing baby harp seals or home defense. Weight and stiffness do matter when climbing. If we're talking about aero bits, that's harder call -- except that dopes on aero bars riding in packs can result in a massive worsening of your riding experience. Wearing aero shoe covers may keep your feet warmer on chilly mornings, which might make you faster. It all adds up.

Stiffness probably does not make a detectable difference, unless the
frame is so flexible that things are scraping. Remember the discussion
we had about the bike magazine's test of modern stiff CF frames vs.
older, heavier steel frames? The test riders gushed about how the
stiffness improved their climbing, but the math showed the speed
difference was precisely what would be predicted by the weight difference.

Weight matters when climbing. If getting to the top of the hill before
your buddy is really, really important, a lighter bike will help by
whatever the percent difference in total bike+rider weight. If a 160
pound rider changes his 20 pound bike for an 18 pound bike, he should be
about 1% faster up a steep hill. Whoopee!

Make that a 5lb weight difference. You need to borrow a well-fitting modern 15lb racing bike with an appropriate gear range and then do a long ride with lots of hills. It's not a subtle or imagined difference compared to a T1000 or old-school steel sport touring bike, particularly if you're trying to keep up with others.

Again, I'm not saying the weight doesn't make a difference! The
difference it makes on an uphill is the percentage difference in
bike+rider weight.

Does nobody remember the discussion a couple years ago where the
magazine article's data proved that? They put young racers on modern CF
bikes, then on 1980s steel racing bikes and timed them up long hills.
The speed difference was exactly what the weight difference predicted.

Think about changing to a bike that was five pounds lighter, but then
strapped a five pound weight around your waist. Hopefully people here
wouldn't think you'd still be way faster up the hills, right?

And again, the stiffness, the snappiness, the magical handling of a CF
bike made no difference at all in that comparison test. There were other
details the youngsters liked on the new bikes - as in "I was afraid to
take my hands off the hoods to shift" - but the speed difference was
apparently due to the weight.

If others think there's some other energy savings or power increase,
please explain it in engineering or scientific terms. Explain how it's
not magic.

--
- Frank Krygowski


Weight doesn't make a difference? News to me.

In 1984 I bought a MIELE BETA bicycle with Tange double-butted tubing and with a complete Shimano 600 groupset. A year or two later I bought a MIELE EQUIPE PRO with a Columbus SL frameset and with a complete Dura Ace groupset. Compared to the Beta the Equipe Pro climbed like a homesick angel, accelerated easier and in general took less energy to keep moving. I imagine that the difference a five to ten pounds lighter carbon fiber bicycle would be even more noticeable.

Cheers


Out of curiosity what was the actual weight of each bike as ridden?
--

Cheers,

John B.


I have no idea. After all it was nearly 34 years ago.

Cheers
 




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
Steel is real Doug Landau Techniques 10 December 28th 16 07:11 PM
Steel is real - again Ralph Barone[_3_] Techniques 18 January 5th 16 08:29 AM
Steel may be real but.... Andre Jute[_2_] Techniques 5 June 4th 13 03:06 AM
Steel is Real Gags Australia 12 August 18th 05 11:57 AM
Steel is real. A real dick! [email protected] Mountain Biking 0 February 11th 05 03:53 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:01 PM.


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.