Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1. #1
    Just Peddlin' Along SaddleBags's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    930
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    CF is outdated....

    Just read an article about a new material developed by Nanotechnology - nanotubes.
    From the article:

    An advance in nanotechnology may lead to the creation of artificial muscles, superstrong electric cars and wallpaper-thin electronics, researchers report.

    Self-supporting, transparent and stronger than steel or high-strength plastics, the sheets are flexible and can be heated to emit light.

    A sheet made from nanotubes, tiny carbon tubes only a few times bigger than atoms with remarkable strength and electronic properties.

    Future applications that scientists have discussed include creating artificial muscles whose movement is electrically charged, or race cars with stronger, lighter bodies that could also serve as batteries, says chemist Andrew Barron of Rice University in Houston.

    "We could see this on Formula 1 (racing) cars by next season, says Barron. "This is a jumping-off point for a technology a lot of people will pursue."

    Complete article:
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/200...igbreakthrough

    Haven't seen any research or strength/weight ratio and how it compares to other material. But if they're looking at applications in the Formula1 cars, why not bike frames?

  2. #2
    TÍte de Limace gurana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Maryland
    My Bikes
    '05 Specialized Allez Sport Triple
    Posts
    1,542
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I'd imagine that, at least initially, the cost would be prohibitive for the general public. And because pros have rules about minimum weight requirements, there wouldn't be too much market for them.

    I also imagine that there are materials out there today that could be used in place of CF that exceed in durability, strength, lightess, etc. but again: cost and rules rule them out.

    Les Douleurs de la Mort. :: Sed fugit interea fugit irreparabile tempus.

  3. #3
    Buddha Khan
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    445
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Easton is already using CNT in their forks?

  4. #4
    45 miles/week Eggplant Jeff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    My Bikes
    Jamis Aurora
    Posts
    2,020
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    It isn't that new, my last company had been using them for a few years. I think they are becoming more widespread as more applications are developed though.

    Cost would be the main issue. Minimum weight wouldn't be, because if you can make the frame lighter, you can use heavier components to meet the minimum weight and maybe get some advantage that way (better brakes or something). I'm certain they will have some applications although of course making specific predictions is difficult.

  5. #5
    TÍte de Limace gurana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Maryland
    My Bikes
    '05 Specialized Allez Sport Triple
    Posts
    1,542
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Eggplant Jeff
    It isn't that new, my last company had been using them for a few years. I think they are becoming more widespread as more applications are developed though.

    Cost would be the main issue. Minimum weight wouldn't be, because if you can make the frame lighter, you can use heavier components to meet the minimum weight and maybe get some advantage that way (better brakes or something). I'm certain they will have some applications although of course making specific predictions is difficult.
    That is an excellent point. Which parts of the bike do you think they could make heavier to get an advantage? My first thought were the wheels and/or tires. But that's no good, because it's rotating weight. I'd say that a 15# bike with an ultra light frame but heavier tires would be worse than a 15# bike with a 'heavy' frame with lighter tires. Maybe pro riders can finally get more comfortable saddle, but then you have aero to worry about. I guess the most likely canidate would be perhaps the brakes then, as you said. Might give up some aero with beefier brakes, but not as much as a gel saddle or something similar.

    Les Douleurs de la Mort. :: Sed fugit interea fugit irreparabile tempus.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Melbourne in Australia
    My Bikes
    Old 12-speed commuter, When I earn enough I'll get a fixed KHS flite 100
    Posts
    568
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    But really, what will be the difference between a 1 kilogram frame, and 600gram frame. Frames are ridiculously light already, that the advantage would be miniscule.

  7. #7
    Senior Member biodiesel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    543
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by lisitsa
    But really, what will be the difference between a 1 kilogram frame, and 600gram frame. Frames are ridiculously light already, that the advantage would be miniscule.
    Here's an experiment.
    Put 600 grams in your pocket. Run up 7 flights of steps.
    Now put 1 kilo in your pockets and run up the same set of steps...
    Then put the 15 pounds of standard bike weight in a backpack and run up 7 flights of steps.

    I'll betcha notice the difference...

    The question we can't answer yet is whether lighter is better over long distances. Maybe a certain ammount of rolling weight helps sustain momentum, maybe too light a bike has drawbacks... Maybe...
    That's why science is fun, always learning new things...

  8. #8
    Spoked to Death phidauex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Boulder, CO
    My Bikes
    Salsa La Cruz w/ Alfine Internal 8-speed, Scattante Ultegra roadie, Maserati fixie conversion
    Posts
    1,334
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by lisitsa
    But really, what will be the difference between a 1 kilogram frame, and 600gram frame.
    5000$

    Seriously though, nanotubes could be used to make all sorts of parts, not just frames. Wheels, cranks, bars, stems, seats, etc.

    I ride an old steel bike everywhere, so I don't really care. But the geek in me is facinated. Bikes hit their functional peak about 80 years ago, and since then it has just been a grand experiment in excess and geekery. But thats OK, its not about the destination, its about the journey. Bring on the nanotubes.

    peace,
    sam

  9. #9
    Chairman of the Bored catatonic's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    St. Petersburg, FL
    My Bikes
    2004 Raleigh Talus, 2001 Motobecane Vent Noir (Custom build for heavy riders)
    Posts
    5,825
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by biodiesel
    Here's an experiment.
    Put 600 grams in your pocket. Run up 7 flights of steps.
    Now put 1 kilo in your pockets and run up the same set of steps...
    Then put the 15 pounds of standard bike weight in a backpack and run up 7 flights of steps.

    I'll betcha notice the difference...

    The question we can't answer yet is whether lighter is better over long distances. Maybe a certain ammount of rolling weight helps sustain momentum, maybe too light a bike has drawbacks... Maybe...
    That's why science is fun, always learning new things...
    Rotational weight is overrated.

    Basically less weight helps on climbs and rapid acceleration (sprints), but when an object is decelerating, the heavier wheel has more inertia, which means the deceleration rate is lower than on a lighter wheelset. It's a tradeoff. Really there is no right answer. The "faster" feeling is just the acceleration benefit, and top speed is just a benefit of that as well, since you will blow less energy to get to a given point, since you are not fighting the wheels so much to get there.....however, the benefit is not really worth much overall unless you are racing.

    As for frame weight...if it does not sacrifice strength or durability, it's great. Same for any other part.

    I also thought I heard about easton using nanotubes in their forks. EIther way, we are not very far off from it if we aren't there already.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •