Road Cycling - EFBe: I did some digging, but I'm still buying a Superprodigy

So, I found a short article that objectively critiques the procedures of the EFBe fatigue test:

http://hea-www.harvard.edu/~fine/opinions/frame-test.html

I'll no longer laud the test as the best thing since stretch denim, but I still can't help but be impressed by the performance of the steel Cervelos -- so I'm still gunna get one:D

he has a point that the test may be too intense. But as a Mech. Engineer, i think it is only right to assume a maximum amount of force that could be applied. He argues that really good riders weigh less than 150lbs, thus they wouldn't be able to apply so much a force(268lbs) for a long period of time. These should not be the case, since there are fit riders that weigh more than 200lbs. And since we're talking fatigue(w/c depends on the force applied and the times[cycles] it is applied), it will eventaully fail after "n" cycles. Since they established the force, I believe the fame has to pass a certain "x" cycles to comply.

As to his comments of the force in the dropouts: he is right that the chain tension would not equal the reactive force on the dropouts, but be significantly lesser(chain tension). And yes, depending on the gear the force would vary since the arm would change.

In the test, the frame would usually fail on the headsets/forks becuase of the tests equipment design. Other than this, I think the test will be close enough to the real thing.

Get one. My friend has one,team color and loves it,

Tafi's 2003 Paris-Roubaix bike:

Tafi's 2003 Paris-Roubaix bike:

What forks are they?

What forks are they?

Hard to say. Cervelo might know. Check out the very blue collar wheels. Nice, strong, serviceable stuff. :)

Hard to say. Cervelo might know. Check out the very blue collar wheels. Nice, strong, serviceable stuff. :)

Where'd ya get the photo?

Where'd ya get the photo?

I've had it for awhile. I probably got it at www.cyclingnews.com

it's a columbus muscle fork.

I've had it for awhile. I probably got it at www.cyclingnews.com


Cervelo's website has alot more.

The Cervelos are nice. 531, I chatted to Phil White at one of the Australian Trade shows and he was a pretty approachable guy - this was just before he signed the deal with CSC and he seemed pretty nervous about it. Franky, who can blame him! That's a lotta cash.

The bottom line with the Prodigy/Super Prodigy is that they really are no different to any other nicely made modern TIG'd steel frame. Don't get me wrong - they're nice bikes and I'm sure you'd be happy with one. It's great the Cervelo put them up to be tested - it would be nice for eveyone to have that luxury - but realisticaly, if you're going to have a test, you can't just publish the results that you want to publish. And if you're going to make comparisons, you need to actually make comparions TO something. The other thing to consider, is that it makes no economic sense for a company to put inferior or faulty product out there - which is why you generally don't see bikes snapping left right and centre.

Honestly, I think tests like this are generally productive, but you can't make critical, broard ranging judgements based on the Efbe tests.

How would you be if someone else did a study of 3 people, omitted the results the 2 who didn't want their results published, and then concluded that the one left passed the test with flying colours? Would any sane person make a judgement on that?

Does the guy make valid points, or is he speaking bollocks?

Both Tom Fine and Don Ferris make very good comments regarding the EfBe tests, 531. My reaction in the past to the test has largely been in reaction to the manner of the 'study' ( which it isn't ) or 'conclusions' ( which are not even remotely conclusive ), but both of these guys make good comments about the testing 'system' itself from a more engineering perspective.

Both are a good read. Nice find 531! And yeah, I feel both are spot on.

The EFBe testing is really only a reference point, an objective standard designed to provide some comparative data to allow consumers and manufacturers to add more info to the buying and manufacturing of bicycle frames.

One thing it is not is a real time test, which is the focus of the author of your article. For example, he talks about forces applied while climbing out of the saddle. A well trained cyclist is trained to limit body movements and bike movements as much as possible so that a maximum amount of force is directed to the rear wheel instead of being disipated or redirected to other areas of the bike. There are physiological and mechanical benefits to good form when riding, but even the best trained cyclist is not going to be able to keep the wheels anchored and the frame straight enough to simulate the method in which forces are applied in the EFBe testing. That is why the testing is a reference point, not a conclusive standard.

But, since the testing standards are higher than those most cyclists will ever experience in their riding life, they give some point to reference off of.

As your thought's are no doubt, "Well, if my bike can pass those tests, then it should be a good, strong bike that should last a long time." That conclusion is not a bad one based on the EFBe testing. Nor is it misled.

The most important concerns are the conclusions drawn about the frames that failed. Did they fail because they were bad frames or because they were subjected to testing to an unrealistic standard? That is an important question.

It is somewhat obvious that EFBe's standard is not realistic. I said in my previous posting on this topic that the Top Standard they set is one that no one but the most serious cobblestone rider would ever meet. I think your article suports that and brings out other fine points as Dexmax has highlighted.

Enjoy your Cervelo. It should be a fine bike.