Notices
Cyclocross and Gravelbiking (Recreational) This has to be the most physically intense sport ever invented. It's high speed bicycle racing on a short off road course or riding the off pavement rides on gravel like : "Unbound Gravel". We also have a dedicated Racing forum for the Cyclocross Hard Core Racers.

Carbon to Ti frame.

Old 11-07-23, 10:33 AM
  #51  
Habitual User
 
Eric F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Altadena, CA
Posts: 7,956

Bikes: 2023 Niner RLT 9 RDO, 2018 Trek Procaliber 9.9 RSL, 2018 Storck Fascenario.3 Platinum, 2003 Time VX Special Pro, 2001 Colnago VIP, 1999 Trek 9900 singlespeed, 1977 Nishiki ONP

Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4926 Post(s)
Liked 8,060 Times in 3,810 Posts
Originally Posted by TC1
I am not expressing my opinion here -- I am relaying scientific fact, that has been proven decades ago and repeatedly since. You can choose to pretend that those facts do not exist, if you like, but that will not make them disappear.

No one suggested that it is. But again, the energy input that discomforts riders occurs in the vertical plane.
I'm actually not disputing the facts you're trying to push - zero/minimal difference in compliance in the vertical plane. My point is that the forces that contribute to comfort do not only happen when acting on the frame in the vertical plane. Expand your mind, man.

Originally Posted by TC1
Most riders do not turn the pedals while cornering, first of all. And turning the pedals is very much not mutually-exclusive with riding in a straight line, so your first sentence there does not make much sense.

Second, again, for not even the second time, lateral and torsional deflection affect the handling of a bicycle, but not the comfort perceived by the rider -- those are two different qualities.
Nope. Cornering/turning happens when pedaling very frequently when riding a bicycle. Not all turns are leaned over enough to require the rider to stop pedaling. An important factor that you might be missing is that even pedaling a bike in a (relatively) straight line exerts lateral and torsional forces on the frame. The force on the pedals is not aligned with the vertical axis of the frame. How the frame reacts to those forces and transmits vibrations back to the rider has an effect the perceived comfort of the ride.

Stop trying to stuff everything into boxes. A human riding a bicycle is a constantly dynamic activity.
__________________
"Swedish fish. They're protein shaped." - livedarklions
Eric F is offline  
Likes For Eric F:
Old 11-07-23, 10:49 AM
  #52  
Habitual User
 
Eric F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Altadena, CA
Posts: 7,956

Bikes: 2023 Niner RLT 9 RDO, 2018 Trek Procaliber 9.9 RSL, 2018 Storck Fascenario.3 Platinum, 2003 Time VX Special Pro, 2001 Colnago VIP, 1999 Trek 9900 singlespeed, 1977 Nishiki ONP

Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4926 Post(s)
Liked 8,060 Times in 3,810 Posts
Originally Posted by Fentuz
Frankly, did you?

I asked about frame and frame material ONLY as I will transfer everything from the current frame to the next. And yet you started to that it does not matter because flex and comfort come from the accessories ..
As someone who has taken all of the parts from one bike, and put them on another, multiple times, my experiences is that there was definitely a difference I could perceive every time I made a change. How much was related to differences in geometry, and how much was frame material, I'm not able to tell you in a meaningful way. I had aluminum bikes that felt harsh and nervous, aluminum bikes that felt soft and relaxed (comparatively), and CF bikes that felt different ways. While I don't completely agree (based on my personal experiences) that the frame doesn't matter, I would agree that the frame material might matter less to comfort than the marketing folks would have you believe. An uneducated conclusion I've come to is that a frame's lateral stiffness plays a fairly meaningful role in the net result.
__________________
"Swedish fish. They're protein shaped." - livedarklions
Eric F is offline  
Old 11-07-23, 02:59 PM
  #53  
Senior Member
 
79pmooney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 12,891

Bikes: (2) ti TiCycles, 2007 w/ triple and 2011 fixed, 1979 Peter Mooney, ~1983 Trek 420 now fixed and ~1973 Raleigh Carlton Competition gravel grinder

Mentioned: 129 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4791 Post(s)
Liked 3,918 Times in 2,548 Posts
I regularly move parts from one frame to another. The ride changes. My ti bikes have nearly the same parts as my steel bikes. Again, different rides. I feel those differences. And I've been told for many years my body is wrong; that I cannot.

I loved the sublime ride of the old tubular rims and sewups. That didn't happen over my 25 years on clinchers with Open Pro rims and the like; all of which were much stiffer than the old shallow tubular rims. The later tubular GP4s are also deeper and aren't quite as sublime a ride on rougher road surfaces. Another place I noticed the difference was on Cycle Oregon when I hit a potholed stretch going quite fast. On those tiny, rock hard tires. I hit a far pothole edge hard. This would have been a real shock with my previous Open Pros unless I was running modern pressures and with those skinny tires (biggest frame allowed) put me very close to pinch flat. Instead, the bike took that hit completely in stride. And it was "oh yeah! I remember this from my racing days."

You can tell me I'm imaging things but my bikes and body tell me otherwise. If the test don't back me up, well maybe they are not looking at what matters.
79pmooney is offline  
Likes For 79pmooney:
Old 11-07-23, 09:45 PM
  #54  
TC1
Full Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2023
Location: Illinois
Posts: 478
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 359 Post(s)
Liked 129 Times in 84 Posts
Originally Posted by Eric F
An important factor that you might be missing is that even pedaling a bike in a (relatively) straight line exerts lateral and torsional forces on the frame. The force on the pedals is not aligned with the vertical axis of the frame. How the frame reacts to those forces and transmits vibrations back to the rider has an effect the perceived comfort of the ride.
First off, if pedaling your bike produces significant vibrations that are sufficient to make your bike uncomfortable to ride, clean or replace your bottom bracket bearings, because there must be gravel or something inside. The pedals on a properly-maintained bicycle turn with no such vibration -- and even if they didn't, are isolated from the frame by grease and bearings. Do you use special, audiophile grease on your bikes to assure that all the vibrations are faithfully reproduced by your bearings?

Second, those lateral and torsional forces still do not matter to the rider's comfort -- so this is not "an important factor" in any way, shape, or form.

Originally Posted by Eric F
Stop trying to stuff everything into boxes. A human riding a bicycle is a constantly dynamic activity.
Some things belong in boxes. Other things belong in landfills, such as the long-since disproven idea that material selection affects the ride quality of a rigid double-triangle bicycle frame.

You might not like that fact, much like audiophiles famously cannot come to grips with the fact that fancy speaker wires do not have any audible effect, but science does not care what you like.

Last edited by TC1; 11-07-23 at 09:45 PM. Reason: remove extra end-quote
TC1 is offline  
Likes For TC1:
Old 11-07-23, 09:52 PM
  #55  
Habitual User
 
Eric F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Altadena, CA
Posts: 7,956

Bikes: 2023 Niner RLT 9 RDO, 2018 Trek Procaliber 9.9 RSL, 2018 Storck Fascenario.3 Platinum, 2003 Time VX Special Pro, 2001 Colnago VIP, 1999 Trek 9900 singlespeed, 1977 Nishiki ONP

Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4926 Post(s)
Liked 8,060 Times in 3,810 Posts
Originally Posted by TC1
First off, if pedaling your bike produces significant vibrations that are sufficient to make your bike uncomfortable to ride, clean or replace your bottom bracket bearings, because there must be gravel or something inside. The pedals on a properly-maintained bicycle turn with no such vibration -- and even if they didn't, are isolated from the frame by grease and bearings. Do you use special, audiophile grease on your bikes to assure that all the vibrations are faithfully reproduced by your bearings?

Second, those lateral and torsional forces still do not matter to the rider's comfort -- so this is not "an important factor" in any way, shape, or form.



Some things belong in boxes. Other things belong in landfills, such as the long-since disproven idea that material selection affects the ride quality of a rigid double-triangle bicycle frame.

You might not like that fact, much like audiophiles famously cannot come to grips with the fact that fancy speaker wires do not have any audible effect, but science does not care what you like.
Thank you for confirming that you don’t understand much about the operation of bicycles in the real world.
__________________
"Swedish fish. They're protein shaped." - livedarklions
Eric F is offline  
Old 11-07-23, 09:53 PM
  #56  
TC1
Full Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2023
Location: Illinois
Posts: 478
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 359 Post(s)
Liked 129 Times in 84 Posts
Originally Posted by Eric F
As someone who has taken all of the parts from one bike, and put them on another, multiple times, my experiences is that there was definitely a difference I could perceive every time I made a change.
And some people swear they can hear the difference between digital audio sources -- which is also impossible. You could not detect those alleged differences in a double-blind test of your bikes, because they are physically impossible, even if your brain has been completely convinced that your new purchase was miles better than your old one.

The simple fact that you claim there was a significant difference "every time" is evidence enough that you are a victim of confirmation bias -- and there's no shame in that, everyone is susceptible to it, but intelligent people recognize the phenomenon. To quote S Wonder, "When you believe in things / that you don't understand / then you suffer."
TC1 is offline  
Old 11-07-23, 10:01 PM
  #57  
TC1
Full Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2023
Location: Illinois
Posts: 478
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 359 Post(s)
Liked 129 Times in 84 Posts
Originally Posted by 79pmooney
I regularly move parts from one frame to another. The ride changes.
With respect, "No **** Sherlock". That's what science tells us -- the components are responsible for the ride quality.

Originally Posted by 79pmooney
My ti bikes have nearly the same parts as my steel bikes. Again, different rides. I feel those differences. And I've been told for many years my body is wrong; that I cannot.
And those people who have told you that, are correct. Please see my preceding response on the topic of "confirmation bias", from which you are also suffering. ( And I use that term loosely -- if it makes you happy to believe in your titanium religion, great, more power to you, everyone wants to be happy... just don't run around proselytizing that nonsense which has long-since been proven to be false. )

Come on guys, this is not rocket science, nor is it even particularly recent science. We have known the properties of these materials and shapes for many years. You are describing fantasy.
TC1 is offline  
Likes For TC1:
Old 11-07-23, 10:09 PM
  #58  
TC1
Full Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2023
Location: Illinois
Posts: 478
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 359 Post(s)
Liked 129 Times in 84 Posts
Originally Posted by Eric F
Thank you for confirming that you don’t understand much about the operation of bicycles in the real world.
Hey, big talk from the guy whose pedals apparently grind like a coffee machine.

Ironically, that same "real world" excuse is constantly used by audiophiles to defend their purchase of thousands of dollars of cables that cannot make any audible difference. They almost always fall back on the same story -- "Well I can't explain why all the science says otherwise, but I KNOW I can hear the difference in the real world." It is very difficult, as this thread illustrates, for some people to admit that they've been taken for a ride -- financially and figuratively speaking -- and/or that closely-held beliefs are in-fact nothing but superstition.
TC1 is offline  
Old 11-07-23, 10:51 PM
  #59  
Habitual User
 
Eric F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Altadena, CA
Posts: 7,956

Bikes: 2023 Niner RLT 9 RDO, 2018 Trek Procaliber 9.9 RSL, 2018 Storck Fascenario.3 Platinum, 2003 Time VX Special Pro, 2001 Colnago VIP, 1999 Trek 9900 singlespeed, 1977 Nishiki ONP

Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4926 Post(s)
Liked 8,060 Times in 3,810 Posts
Originally Posted by TC1
Hey, big talk from the guy whose pedals apparently grind like a coffee machine.

Ironically, that same "real world" excuse is constantly used by audiophiles to defend their purchase of thousands of dollars of cables that cannot make any audible difference. They almost always fall back on the same story -- "Well I can't explain why all the science says otherwise, but I KNOW I can hear the difference in the real world." It is very difficult, as this thread illustrates, for some people to admit that they've been taken for a ride -- financially and figuratively speaking -- and/or that closely-held beliefs are in-fact nothing but superstition.
You’re not helping your case by extrapolating my use of the word “vibrations” into something that I clearly was not talking about. There might not be a meaningful measurable difference between materials in the vertical deflection of a standard bike frame tested in laboratory conditions (I have not argued against that), but limiting yourself to only the results of only that one data point to determine ride “comfort” shows a lack of understating of the other forces involved with making a bicycle move down the road, and how we interact with it.

As for speaker wire, I’m a 12ga stranded copper guy. I also believe that Bluetooth does a sufficient job transmitting audio data across the room for my needs. I do spin vinyl records, on occasion, but it’s about the nostalgic ritual of it, not some belief in superior audio quality. I am mildly picky about speaker placement and decent stereo imaging, however.
__________________
"Swedish fish. They're protein shaped." - livedarklions
Eric F is offline  
Old 11-07-23, 11:01 PM
  #60  
Habitual User
 
Eric F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Altadena, CA
Posts: 7,956

Bikes: 2023 Niner RLT 9 RDO, 2018 Trek Procaliber 9.9 RSL, 2018 Storck Fascenario.3 Platinum, 2003 Time VX Special Pro, 2001 Colnago VIP, 1999 Trek 9900 singlespeed, 1977 Nishiki ONP

Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4926 Post(s)
Liked 8,060 Times in 3,810 Posts
Originally Posted by TC1
With respect, "No **** Sherlock". That's what science tells us -- the components are responsible for the ride quality.
You’re getting so lost in your little box that reading comprehension is leaving you.

He took the parts from one frame and put them on another frame. Same parts, different frame, different feel. The parts/components variable is eliminated. The differences might be measurable, but you have to look beyond just vertical compliance data.
__________________
"Swedish fish. They're protein shaped." - livedarklions
Eric F is offline  
Old 11-07-23, 11:06 PM
  #61  
I am potato.
 
base2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 3,106

Bikes: Only precision built, custom high performance elitist machines of the highest caliber. 🍆

Mentioned: 28 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1783 Post(s)
Liked 1,622 Times in 928 Posts
If ever you wondered: "Oh, wow...How can seemingly sane, rational people/person think irrational preposterous thing (X)?" There is almost always a sure-fire guarentee that somewhere along the way a fundamental, foundational concept or critical piece of information that has been missed.






But since TC1 apparently watched a Youtube video once that makes him the one and only sole authority on the matter... And since no one here is as worthy or credible in adding depth of meaning or nuance to the knowledge given with God level authority bestowed upon TC1 by the Youtubes. Here is another video from the only source that TC1 finds credible.


TC1 Here is a bit of news: Nobody is buying a steel or titanium or carbon, or bamboo, or wood, or whatever frame material because of they thought they were buying "vertical compliance" of the frame. That you seem to think that we think "vertical compliance" is the defining characteristic of comfort in spite of all the posts to the contrary says a lot more about you than it does about the collective.


Last edited by base2; 11-07-23 at 11:56 PM.
base2 is offline  
Old 11-07-23, 11:11 PM
  #62  
TC1
Full Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2023
Location: Illinois
Posts: 478
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 359 Post(s)
Liked 129 Times in 84 Posts
Originally Posted by Eric F
You’re not helping your case by extrapolating my use of the word “vibrations” into something that I clearly was not talking about.
So what were you talking about when you claimed that pedaling a bicycle induces vibrations that are sufficient to discomfort the rider? I am not aware of any properly-maintained crankset system for which that would be even close to true.

Originally Posted by Eric F
limiting yourself to only the results of only that one data point to determine ride “comfort” shows a lack of understating of the other forces involved with making a bicycle move down the road, and how we interact with it.
Forces moving the bicycle down the road are irrelevant to comfort. Forces moving the bicycle up off the road are relevant.

And, for the record, if you believe that your frame is more flexible than your tires even laterally, perform a simple test. Push your thumb into your inflated tire, and see it deflect. Now push secure your frame in a jig, and push your thumb against it -- and see it not deflect.
TC1 is offline  
Old 11-07-23, 11:17 PM
  #63  
TC1
Full Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2023
Location: Illinois
Posts: 478
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 359 Post(s)
Liked 129 Times in 84 Posts
Originally Posted by base2
If ever you wondered: "Oh, wow...How can seemingly sane, rational people/person think irrational preposterous thing (X)?"
Yes, but post-purchase superstition has an amazingly-strong hold on some people, as I just said.

Originally Posted by base2
There is almost always a sure-fire guarentee that somewhere along the way a fundamental, foundational concept or critical piece of information that has been missed.
Are you referring to the difference between "vertical" and "lateral"? That's a very "fundamental, foundational" concept and you seem to have missed it.

No one has suggested that bicycle frames do not deflect laterally, as shown in your video. That, however, has nothing whatsoever to do with comfort.

Last edited by TC1; 11-07-23 at 11:32 PM.
TC1 is offline  
Old 11-07-23, 11:21 PM
  #64  
Habitual User
 
Eric F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Altadena, CA
Posts: 7,956

Bikes: 2023 Niner RLT 9 RDO, 2018 Trek Procaliber 9.9 RSL, 2018 Storck Fascenario.3 Platinum, 2003 Time VX Special Pro, 2001 Colnago VIP, 1999 Trek 9900 singlespeed, 1977 Nishiki ONP

Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4926 Post(s)
Liked 8,060 Times in 3,810 Posts
Originally Posted by TC1
And some people swear they can hear the difference between digital audio sources -- which is also impossible. You could not detect those alleged differences in a double-blind test of your bikes, because they are physically impossible, even if your brain has been completely convinced that your new purchase was miles better than your old one.

The simple fact that you claim there was a significant difference "every time" is evidence enough that you are a victim of confirmation bias -- and there's no shame in that, everyone is susceptible to it, but intelligent people recognize the phenomenon. To quote S Wonder, "When you believe in things / that you don't understand / then you suffer."
What you aren’t acknowledging - or are refusing to acknowledge - is that some people may be more sensitive to certain sensations than others. Some of it is related to having enough experience to have a frame of reference to recognize the differences. For people without a frame of reference, it’s easy to just deny that differences exist…and then quote some study that confirms their bias.
__________________
"Swedish fish. They're protein shaped." - livedarklions
Eric F is offline  
Old 11-07-23, 11:25 PM
  #65  
TC1
Full Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2023
Location: Illinois
Posts: 478
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 359 Post(s)
Liked 129 Times in 84 Posts
Originally Posted by Eric F
He took the parts from one frame and put them on another frame. Same parts, different frame, different feel.
That's your assumption, but that's not what he wrote. He wrote: "I regularly move parts from one frame to another. The ride changes."

Originally Posted by Eric F
The parts/components variable is eliminated. The differences might be measurable, but you have to look beyond just vertical compliance data.
So, on the one hand, we have the confirmation bias explanation -- a phenomenon well-known to science since Thucydides ( a long time, for the non-scientific readers out there ). And, on the other hand, we have the superstitious belief that under certain unknown, impossible-to-describe circumstances, bicycles frames become more pliable than pneumatic tires -- a phenomenon which has never been observed by science, and is supported by no known hypothesis.

Hmmm... which is likelier to be correct?
TC1 is offline  
Old 11-07-23, 11:31 PM
  #66  
TC1
Full Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2023
Location: Illinois
Posts: 478
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 359 Post(s)
Liked 129 Times in 84 Posts
Originally Posted by Eric F
What you aren’t acknowledging - or are refusing to acknowledge - is that some people may be more sensitive to certain sensations than others. Some of it is related to having enough experience to have a frame of reference to recognize the differences. For people without a frame of reference, it’s easy to just deny that differences exist…and then quote some study that confirms their bias.
What you are apparently unable to understand is that the "frame of reference" for those people who tell you that the difference does not exist, is science.

Superstition is not a reasonable alternative.

The science remains brutally clear, despite the attempts at superstitious obfuscation. It requires many thousands of Newtons of force to deflect a bicycle frame, and two orders of magnitude less force is required to deflect pneumatic tires to failure. Until and unless your superstition can work its way out of that box, it remains nothing but wishful-thinking. There is no human capable of sensing deflection that cannot happen, despite your hopes, I'm afraid.
TC1 is offline  
Likes For TC1:
Old 11-07-23, 11:41 PM
  #67  
Habitual User
 
Eric F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Altadena, CA
Posts: 7,956

Bikes: 2023 Niner RLT 9 RDO, 2018 Trek Procaliber 9.9 RSL, 2018 Storck Fascenario.3 Platinum, 2003 Time VX Special Pro, 2001 Colnago VIP, 1999 Trek 9900 singlespeed, 1977 Nishiki ONP

Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4926 Post(s)
Liked 8,060 Times in 3,810 Posts
Originally Posted by TC1
So what were you talking about when you claimed that pedaling a bicycle induces vibrations that are sufficient to discomfort the rider? I am not aware of any properly-maintained crankset system for which that would be even close to true.

Forces moving the bicycle down the road are irrelevant to comfort. Forces moving the bicycle up off the road are relevant.

And, for the record, if you believe that your frame is more flexible than your tires even laterally, perform a simple test. Push your thumb into your inflated tire, and see it deflect. Now push secure your frame in a jig, and push your thumb against it -- and see it not deflect.
Keep going! I can’t wait to see what else you come up with next. You have a fantastic imagination!!
__________________
"Swedish fish. They're protein shaped." - livedarklions
Eric F is offline  
Old 11-08-23, 12:08 AM
  #68  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: In the south but from North
Posts: 700

Bikes: Turner 5-Spot Burner converted; IBIS Ripley, Specialized Crave, Tommasini Sintesi, Cinelli Superstar, Tommasini X-Fire Gravel

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 406 Post(s)
Liked 389 Times in 219 Posts
Classic bikeforum thread. God love this site. The most comical thing is the statement that the "science" shows, with the science being single report from a web-site called "Cycling About".
vespasianus is offline  
Likes For vespasianus:
Old 11-08-23, 12:21 AM
  #69  
I am potato.
 
base2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 3,106

Bikes: Only precision built, custom high performance elitist machines of the highest caliber. 🍆

Mentioned: 28 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1783 Post(s)
Liked 1,622 Times in 928 Posts
Originally Posted by TC1
Yes, but post-purchase superstition has an amazingly-strong hold on some people, as I just said.



Are you referring to the difference between "vertical" and "lateral"? That's a very "fundamental, foundational" concept and you seem to have missed it.

No one has suggested that bicycle frames do not deflect laterally, as shown in your video. That, however, has nothing whatsoever to do with comfort.
I said as much in post number 9
The engineering merits of the double triangle diamond frame leaves little room for "vertical compliance." Lateral and tortional stiffness, however is another matter.
I then identified some common trends of behavior
Titanium is very strong. It is also very springy. If a titanium frame were designed only as strong as necessary and only where necessary like a carbon frame tends to be designed, it would be so noodley so as to be dangerous. Consequently, all the supposed weight savings is eaten up by additional material added to address the absence of tortional and lateral stiffness. The end goal/result is often a ride comparable to a steel bike with some weight savings but not as much as *could* be. The trade-off is often cracking sometime far along the life cycle as manufacturing can be difficult to execute and the elasticity of the welds is different than the tube that was welded. (On a general level.)

Carbon, on the other hand, is not so "springy" and it can be very light weight with enough strength to do the job. So, there is a lot of freedom to design around an intended use. Larger diameter down tubes, head tubes, larger bottom bracket areas and thicker chainstays can be done with very little weight penalty. (Conspicuously absent from this tube growth phenomonon is top tubes and seat tubes.)
Then, I suggested where more effective efforts could be directed
For "vertical compliance" ie "comfort" in the traditional sense, tires (bigger softer "air springs") and seatpost will yield much more fruit. A longer seat post will offer much more deflection than a short one. You can see this in the recent trend of lower and lower seatpost collars and ever more sloping top tubes in more recent designs.
Then I gave a suggestion of where possibly the misconception originated:
I think that what a lot of people mean when they repeat: "Steel is real" (& by extension, titanium) is that the frame twists, the quill stem flexes, the side of the handlebar that had weight on it flexed, the bottom bracket deflected, etc...All give the impression of a smoother ride. Whereas a carbon frame by nature of desing is intended to resist those forces so can be perceived as "wooden" by comparison.
...and followed it up with popular design innovations to support the hypothesis.
Designing flex into a carbon bike has been the latest trend with IsoSpeed, IsoShock, Zertz, decoupled seatposts, etc...
The conclusion:
All that is to say, the smaller frame will be smoother not because it is Titanium, but because all the bits that stick out will have room to be flexier.
So, you tell me, who exactly that is it that is being the rube here? What, if any, are the points presented that you take issue with? Where is the threads misunderstanding? Educate me. Educate us all.

Last edited by base2; 11-08-23 at 12:36 AM.
base2 is offline  
Likes For base2:
Old 11-08-23, 12:24 AM
  #70  
TC1
Full Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2023
Location: Illinois
Posts: 478
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 359 Post(s)
Liked 129 Times in 84 Posts
Originally Posted by Eric F
Keep going! I can’t wait to see what else you come up with next. You have a fantastic imagination!!
I do, in-fact, have a fantastic imagination, but I'm not using it here -- I'm just trying to teach you rather basic physics, and a little psychology.

And you keep resorting to ridiculous posts like that one, filled with ad hominem attacks in lieu of any sort of useful contribution.
TC1 is offline  
Likes For TC1:
Old 11-08-23, 12:24 AM
  #71  
Habitual User
 
Eric F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Altadena, CA
Posts: 7,956

Bikes: 2023 Niner RLT 9 RDO, 2018 Trek Procaliber 9.9 RSL, 2018 Storck Fascenario.3 Platinum, 2003 Time VX Special Pro, 2001 Colnago VIP, 1999 Trek 9900 singlespeed, 1977 Nishiki ONP

Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4926 Post(s)
Liked 8,060 Times in 3,810 Posts
Originally Posted by TC1
What you are apparently unable to understand is that the "frame of reference" for those people who tell you that the difference does not exist, is science.

Superstition is not a reasonable alternative.

The science remains brutally clear, despite the attempts at superstitious obfuscation. It requires many thousands of Newtons of force to deflect a bicycle frame, and two orders of magnitude less force is required to deflect pneumatic tires to failure. Until and unless your superstition can work its way out of that box, it remains nothing but wishful-thinking. There is no human capable of sensing deflection that cannot happen, despite your hopes, I'm afraid.
”We measured one factor, and found no difference between materials” is scientific, but isn’t necessarily significantly relevant to the real world experience of humans who experience a multitude of different sensations simultaneously, at multiple contact points.

Your belief that a frame cannot bend because of tires (or other components) in the pathway between power and ground is another confirmation that you’ve never ridden a bike hard enough make a frame bend.
__________________
"Swedish fish. They're protein shaped." - livedarklions
Eric F is offline  
Old 11-08-23, 12:26 AM
  #72  
I am potato.
 
base2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 3,106

Bikes: Only precision built, custom high performance elitist machines of the highest caliber. 🍆

Mentioned: 28 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1783 Post(s)
Liked 1,622 Times in 928 Posts
Originally Posted by vespasianus
Classic bikeforum thread. God love this site. The most comical thing is the statement that the "science" shows, with the science being single report from a web-site called "Cycling About".
Heh. Yeah. I picked that one on purpose.
__________________
I shouldn't have to "make myself more visible;" Drivers should just stop running people over.

Car dependency is a tax.
base2 is offline  
Old 11-08-23, 12:26 AM
  #73  
TC1
Full Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2023
Location: Illinois
Posts: 478
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 359 Post(s)
Liked 129 Times in 84 Posts
Originally Posted by vespasianus
Classic bikeforum thread. God love this site. The most comical thing is the statement that the "science" shows, with the science being single report from a web-site called "Cycling About".
If you were even the slightest bit informed on the topic, and/or had even read that article, you might be aware that the science is vastly more widespread than you suggest -- not that it even needs to be, as one can confirm the findings in their own garage, if need be. But you'll probably insist on clamping your hands over your ears and wailing "I can't hear you", so I'll leave you to your delusions.
TC1 is offline  
Likes For TC1:
Old 11-08-23, 12:39 AM
  #74  
TC1
Full Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2023
Location: Illinois
Posts: 478
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 359 Post(s)
Liked 129 Times in 84 Posts
Originally Posted by base2
Then you went on to post a video of lateral deformation, and insinuate that it was somehow relevant to the conversation -- along with calling the position that you are now seemingly agreeing with "irrational" and "preposterous". So, to put it mildly, make up your mind.

Originally Posted by base2
So, you tell me, who exactly that is it that is being the rube here? What, if any, are the points presented that you take issue with? Where is the threads misunderstanding? Educate me. Educate us all.
I have been trying to educate you all -- but with some of you, it might be easier to educate a rock, or a stump. Or, more precisely, to talk a devout believer out of the existence of God, or Bigfoot.

I did not disagree with all your post #9, that you laboriously quoted, and you'll note that I did not respond to it. Some of it didn't make any sense, but it wasn't worth my time to argue points not germane to my position. For example, you wrote:

Originally Posted by base2
I think that what a lot of people mean when they repeat: "Steel is real" (& by extension, titanium) is that the frame twists, the quill stem flexes, the side of the handlebar that had weight on it flexed, the bottom bracket deflected, etc...All give the impression of a smoother ride. Whereas a carbon frame by nature of desing is intended to resist those forces so can be perceived as "wooden" by comparison.
In that paragraph, you partially support what I've been educating folks on -- which is that components are responsible for ride quality -- but then go on to claim that carbon fiber bikes have poor ride quality, when one of their alleged selling points is exactly the opposite. Now, I could have used this inconsistency to illustrate that all these notions of frame material effecting ride quality are nonsense, because even the believers can't keep their stories straight, but that was not worth my time, so I skipped it. If I called-out every bit of nonsense in this thread, I might burn out the servers that host this site.
TC1 is offline  
Old 11-08-23, 12:44 AM
  #75  
TC1
Full Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2023
Location: Illinois
Posts: 478
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 359 Post(s)
Liked 129 Times in 84 Posts
Originally Posted by Eric F
”We measured one factor, and found no difference between materials” is scientific
You'd sound much more like you have a clue, if you, ya know, had a clue about the relevant science. That's not an accurate description. An accurate description would be: "We've measured the force required to deflect thousands of different frames, and in every case, the required force is two orders of magnitude greater than the force required to deflect the other components in the system."

Originally Posted by Eric F
Your belief that a frame cannot bend because of tires (or other components) in the pathway between power and ground is another confirmation that you’ve never ridden a bike hard enough make a frame bend.
I never have, and neither has anyone else since the development of pneumatic tires. Again, I am not offering my opinion here, this has been proven, time and again, over decades.

And by the way, you're again misrepresenting the situation. "Power" has nothing whatsoever to do with this problem.

Last edited by TC1; 11-08-23 at 10:46 AM.
TC1 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.