Curvy geometry vs. straight geometry
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 171
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 38 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Curvy geometry vs. straight geometry
Hello, I am deciding between these 2 bikes. In the general forum, a menber explained that in his experience straight frames are more reliable and light than frames made with a more curvy geometry, like the Willy. What do you guys think?
#3
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Chicago Western 'burbs
Posts: 1,065
Bikes: 1993 NOS Mt Shasta Tempest, Motobecane Fantom Cross CX, Dahon Speed D7, Dahon Vector P8, Bullitt Superfly
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Whoever told you that is either stupid or f**king with you.
#4
Señor Member
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 5,066
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 649 Post(s)
Liked 292 Times
in
215 Posts
Found it:
Maltess2 - please realize that vatdim has no idea what he is talking about. People can have whatever preference they like for whatever reasons they like, but suggesting he can recognize some difference between the bikes based on the curviness of the frame tube junctions is one of the most ignorant and ridiculous things I have ever read on BF.
In my experience as a cyclist and from what I've read in various books, the straighter the frame tubes, the better the bike handles and, more importantly, the better it endures heavier loads. The classic geometry is 2 triangles for this reason. The Scott pretty much has it, but the Wilier not so much. If you look closely, you can spot that the top tube makes a slight curve downwards right before reaching the seat post. Also, even harder to notice, is that the seatstays are actually curved slightly. Take an object that has a straight line and put it next to these tubes, you will see the curve.
Now many people would wave off such worries by saying that technology has made such things possible, etc. I don't disagree with that, I'm just saying that I personally prefer the classic geometry that the Scott has, since I feel it'd ride better and be more durable in the long run.
Now many people would wave off such worries by saying that technology has made such things possible, etc. I don't disagree with that, I'm just saying that I personally prefer the classic geometry that the Scott has, since I feel it'd ride better and be more durable in the long run.
#5
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Sofia, Bulgaria, EU
Posts: 186
Bikes: Drag Grizzly, Raleigh Pioneer Venture GT
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Found it:
Maltess2 - please realize that vatdim has no idea what he is talking about. People can have whatever preference they like for whatever reasons they like, but suggesting he can recognize some difference between the bikes based on the curviness of the frame tube junctions is one of the most ignorant and ridiculous things I have ever read on BF.
Maltess2 - please realize that vatdim has no idea what he is talking about. People can have whatever preference they like for whatever reasons they like, but suggesting he can recognize some difference between the bikes based on the curviness of the frame tube junctions is one of the most ignorant and ridiculous things I have ever read on BF.
#6
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Vermont
Posts: 1,200
Bikes: Pinarello Montello, Merckx MX Leader, Merckx Corsa Extra, Pinarello Prologo, Tredici Magia Nera, Tredici Cross
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times
in
3 Posts
It would make sense to me that a tube with a compound curve might be stiffer in a flexy situation. Cracking & breaking would have a lot to do with the construction of that tube & not the shape. Looks are a whole different matter .
#8
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Sofia, Bulgaria, EU
Posts: 186
Bikes: Drag Grizzly, Raleigh Pioneer Venture GT
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Just something from Sheldon Brown for maltess2 to consider:
Frame
The skeleton of a bicycle. The most common type of frame is called the "diamond" frame, and consists of two (of three, depending on how you look at it) triangles.
The skeleton of a bicycle. The most common type of frame is called the "diamond" frame, and consists of two (of three, depending on how you look at it) triangles.
- The front triangle consists of the seat tube, the top tube, and the down tube...well, it also includes the head tube, so is is not a perfect triangle, but the head tube is usually fairly short, so it is pretty close to being a triangle. The front triangle holds the saddle, the bottom bracket, and, via the headset, the front fork.
- The rear triangle (or triangles, if you count both sides separately) includes the seat tube, seat stays and chain stays.
Diamond Frame
This is the standard design for a bicycle frame, and has been for over a hundred years, since it supplanted the cross frame. It is one of the most nearly perfect pieces of design known, due to the extreme amount of refinement it has undergone over the last century, and its purity of form. It is unlikely that the diamond frame will ever be surpassed as a way to build a rigid-frame bicycle, using joined tubes as a construction medium. This is not to say that the diamond frame is the end-all and be-all of bicycle design. Monocoque construction with suitable materials has real merit, and the design of bicycles with rear suspension is at a stage where many different designs appear viable.
This is the standard design for a bicycle frame, and has been for over a hundred years, since it supplanted the cross frame. It is one of the most nearly perfect pieces of design known, due to the extreme amount of refinement it has undergone over the last century, and its purity of form. It is unlikely that the diamond frame will ever be surpassed as a way to build a rigid-frame bicycle, using joined tubes as a construction medium. This is not to say that the diamond frame is the end-all and be-all of bicycle design. Monocoque construction with suitable materials has real merit, and the design of bicycles with rear suspension is at a stage where many different designs appear viable.
#9
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Chicago Western 'burbs
Posts: 1,065
Bikes: 1993 NOS Mt Shasta Tempest, Motobecane Fantom Cross CX, Dahon Speed D7, Dahon Vector P8, Bullitt Superfly
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I don't remember the exact source where I came across this information laid out with more details (it was about 2-3 years ago). Since I found it made sense in terms of physics, I simply accepted it as a fact at that point. Also, since my own experience and that of people I know of agrees with it, I still feel this way. And I wouldn't recommend something I know I personally wouldn't use, hence my post.
#10
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Willy, VIC
Posts: 644
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
I agree with Vatdim. Curvy tubes are the output of designers, not engineers.
As the large companies push the envelope with frame weight, the curvy tubes are disappearing. Why?
Because a straight tube is stiffer and stronger.
It's easy to demonstrate: make a straight tube and a curved tube the same length and with the same layup and compress them axially to fracture. The curved tube will show more strain for a given load (eg it's less stiff) and will collapse at a much lower load. This was predicted by Leonhard Euler almost three centuries ago (Google Euler column buckling).
The same goes with extensional or torsional loads, for different reasons.
An arch is strong when loaded on the arch, which a bicycle tube isn't.
As the large companies push the envelope with frame weight, the curvy tubes are disappearing. Why?
Because a straight tube is stiffer and stronger.
It's easy to demonstrate: make a straight tube and a curved tube the same length and with the same layup and compress them axially to fracture. The curved tube will show more strain for a given load (eg it's less stiff) and will collapse at a much lower load. This was predicted by Leonhard Euler almost three centuries ago (Google Euler column buckling).
The same goes with extensional or torsional loads, for different reasons.
An arch is strong when loaded on the arch, which a bicycle tube isn't.
Last edited by Mark Kelly; 06-17-15 at 05:23 PM.
#11
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Sofia, Bulgaria, EU
Posts: 186
Bikes: Drag Grizzly, Raleigh Pioneer Venture GT
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I agree with Vatdim. Curvy tubes are the output of designers, not engineers.
As the large companies push the envelope with frame weight, the curvy tubes are disappearing. Why?
Because a straight tube is stiffer and stronger.
It's easy to demonstrate: make a straight tube and a curved tube the same length and with the same layup and compress them axially to fracture. The curved tube will show more strain for a given load (eg it's less stiff) and will collapse at a much lower load. This was predicted by Leonhard Euler almost three centuries ago (Google Euler column buckling).
The same goes with extensional or torsional loads, for different reasons.
An arch is strong when loaded on the arch, which a bicycle tube isn't.
As the large companies push the envelope with frame weight, the curvy tubes are disappearing. Why?
Because a straight tube is stiffer and stronger.
It's easy to demonstrate: make a straight tube and a curved tube the same length and with the same layup and compress them axially to fracture. The curved tube will show more strain for a given load (eg it's less stiff) and will collapse at a much lower load. This was predicted by Leonhard Euler almost three centuries ago (Google Euler column buckling).
The same goes with extensional or torsional loads, for different reasons.
An arch is strong when loaded on the arch, which a bicycle tube isn't.
@Cyclosaurus: I already said, I'm not a professional, I'm just a cyclist. I give friendly advice based on what I have read and experienced over time. That's all.
#12
Randomhead
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Happy Valley, Pennsylvania
Posts: 24,392
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked 3,690 Times
in
2,513 Posts
I feel like it's really difficult to come to the conclusion that curved tubes would be less suitable for frame construction. The tubes aren't simply supported, so the stress analysis is not going to be simple. And I'm sure the layup is different for curved tubes. Thus, I have my doubts that there are any significant differences in the ride of a curved tube bike. Having said that, curved tubes are mostly a styling and bull**** marketing exercise
#13
Senior Member
I feel like it's really difficult to come to the conclusion that curved tubes would be less suitable for frame construction. The tubes aren't simply supported, so the stress analysis is not going to be simple. And I'm sure the layup is different for curved tubes. Thus, I have my doubts that there are any significant differences in the ride of a curved tube bike. Having said that, curved tubes are mostly a styling and bull**** marketing exercise
J.
#14
Banned
"geometry" in bikes is angles and distances between centerlines ..
When there were rules against Logos on race frames, 1 British company started making Curvy Rear triangle tubes ..
When there were rules against Logos on race frames, 1 British company started making Curvy Rear triangle tubes ..
#15
Senior Member
Curved tubes can be aesthetically pleasing and are sometime functional (chainstays/seatstays for tire clearance, seat tube for short wheelbase, fork blades for some level of suspension or for unicrown designs). But it is true that they are slightly weaker and heavier (longer, and thicker-walled if mandrel-bent) than their straight counterpart. If they are properly designed the resulting bike should be perfectly reliable, and I'm sure the Wilier is.
#17
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 16,874
Bikes: 1980 Masi, 1984 Mondonico, 1984 Trek 610, 1980 Woodrup Giro, 2005 Mondonico Futura Leggera ELOS, 1967 PX10E, 1971 Peugeot UO-8
Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1856 Post(s)
Liked 664 Times
in
506 Posts
Just speaking as an engineer:
Curved tubes have more length, hence more mass = weight.
Curved tubes are more flexible than an equivalent straight tube of the same material, construction, and dimensions.
If there are high compression loads, the curved tube should buckle (i.e. become destroyed) with less axial force than the equivalent straight tube.
If the curved tube is metal and has been given its curvature by bending, it has already been cold-set one time more than the equivalent straight tube. This means it is closer to its final failure.
The same problems exist with composite tubes, but there is the option to add material or optimize the use of material (asymmetric layup, or control of fiber direction) to manage stress distribution. But this has to add weight and cost compared to a straight tube intended to satisfy the same purpose.
I don't see any benefits to curved bicycle tubes other than aesthetics (the Hetchins) or in some cases providing a degree of bump absorption (curved fork blades).
Curved tubes have more length, hence more mass = weight.
Curved tubes are more flexible than an equivalent straight tube of the same material, construction, and dimensions.
If there are high compression loads, the curved tube should buckle (i.e. become destroyed) with less axial force than the equivalent straight tube.
If the curved tube is metal and has been given its curvature by bending, it has already been cold-set one time more than the equivalent straight tube. This means it is closer to its final failure.
The same problems exist with composite tubes, but there is the option to add material or optimize the use of material (asymmetric layup, or control of fiber direction) to manage stress distribution. But this has to add weight and cost compared to a straight tube intended to satisfy the same purpose.
I don't see any benefits to curved bicycle tubes other than aesthetics (the Hetchins) or in some cases providing a degree of bump absorption (curved fork blades).
#18
Randomhead
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Happy Valley, Pennsylvania
Posts: 24,392
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked 3,690 Times
in
2,513 Posts
I am also an engineer, and I say that most of the speculation in this thread supporting the thesis that curved tubes are inferior is without basis. The mental model of tubes as a simply supported beam doesn't fly. I think the long practice of using curved tubes without any problem demonstrates that there are no significant differences between curved and straight tubes in a bicycle structure. Go do a survey of bike racks, and you'll see. Ductile metal tubes are made by repeated cold deformation processes, it doesn't hurt anything. Rolling or bending it any other way doesn't seem to hurt it either, that's not where you see failures
#19
Full Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 495
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 49 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 13 Times
in
12 Posts
I think people are just pointing out why curved tubes aren't superior which is what people are being led to believe. If something is more complex or requires additional steps to manufacture it has to be better.
#20
Señor Member
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 5,066
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 649 Post(s)
Liked 292 Times
in
215 Posts
the straighter the frame tubes, the better the bike handles and, more importantly, the better it endures heavier loads
I've seen plenty more curvy frames getting cracked.
#21
Randomhead
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Happy Valley, Pennsylvania
Posts: 24,392
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked 3,690 Times
in
2,513 Posts
Curved frame sections might well be superior. There aren't too many perfectly straight or symmetric sections in nature. I doubt anyone has really gotten into structural optimization for bike frames. My guess is that if they did, they would find that the sections would not be straight
#22
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 171
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 38 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Thanks a lot for all this input. By looking closely at the specs, the Scott has a bit of better components in general except for the wheels, which ara bit better in the Willy. What frame would you think is better constructed and designed? better in terms of quality, both of them are double butler.
#23
Señor Member
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 5,066
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 649 Post(s)
Liked 292 Times
in
215 Posts
Thanks a lot for all this input. By looking closely at the specs, the Scott has a bit of better components in general except for the wheels, which ara bit better in the Willy. What frame would you think is better constructed and designed? better in terms of quality, both of them are double butler.
In case this was not an auto-correct mistake, the correct descriptor for a tube where the wall thickness is different at the ends than in the middle is 'double butted'
In reality, the quality difference between them is negligible. They are quite likely made in the same contract manufacturing facility in Asia. And if you were concerned about component quality, the wheels are the one component that can possibly make a difference to the ride on a new bike (possibly, but probably still barely or not noticeable). Get whichever one fits better. If they fit the same, get the one you like more for whatever reason (aesthetics, colour, handlebar tape texture, etc). If you don't like one more than the other, buy the one that is sold by the shop you like better.
#24
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 171
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 38 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Thanks, and sorry about the misspelling. What about these two frames design wise? is there any of the two more interesting than the other?
Last edited by maltess2; 06-19-15 at 02:20 PM.
#25
Decrepit Member
I'd love to see some finite element analysis images showing stresses in straight vs. curved geo frames.