Steel faster than carbon?
10-27-22, 07:10 AM
#126
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
I am one that believes that people can be sold anything and that so called "bike journalists" and "bike reviewers" are terrible. They are all just recycling the same old crap and use the same lines that are just comically silly.
For example, this review: "At 8.04kg... is a fairly weighty machine by today’s standards, and a lot of that weight does come from the frame – a claimed 1,380g for a medium, about half a kilo up on the top-end carbon weenies. When climbing and accelerating that weight predictably tells."
That is basically the difference in a water bottle. I doubt anyone ever says during a ride, "man, I must be out of water, I can feel the lightness of the bike from the loss of those 500 grams".
You see this all the time with steel bike reviews. Everything people say is just trope BS to fill space.
Could a steel or aluminum bike from 20 years ago be just as fast as a carbon bike from today? Sure. But I would also bet that todays bike is better in many other ways. And yes, you most likely could "update" the bike frame to be similar to the modern bike - but that is often not cost effective.
Bike companies - like all companies are trying to sell you something. They will lie to you and use "journalist" to sell things to you. We are seeing it now with the stupid Canyon steering system.
For example, this review: "At 8.04kg... is a fairly weighty machine by today’s standards, and a lot of that weight does come from the frame – a claimed 1,380g for a medium, about half a kilo up on the top-end carbon weenies. When climbing and accelerating that weight predictably tells."
That is basically the difference in a water bottle. I doubt anyone ever says during a ride, "man, I must be out of water, I can feel the lightness of the bike from the loss of those 500 grams".
You see this all the time with steel bike reviews. Everything people say is just trope BS to fill space.
Could a steel or aluminum bike from 20 years ago be just as fast as a carbon bike from today? Sure. But I would also bet that todays bike is better in many other ways. And yes, you most likely could "update" the bike frame to be similar to the modern bike - but that is often not cost effective.
Bike companies - like all companies are trying to sell you something. They will lie to you and use "journalist" to sell things to you. We are seeing it now with the stupid Canyon steering system.
Likes For vespasianus:
10-27-22, 07:18 AM
#127
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 7,826
Mentioned: 37 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6927 Post(s)
Liked 10,930 Times
in
4,667 Posts
I'd still like to know if amazinmets73 actually races bikes, or is just a cosplayer.
Likes For Koyote:
10-27-22, 07:22 AM
#128
Sunshine
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Des Moines, IA
Posts: 16,601
Bikes: '18 class built steel roadbike, '19 Fairlight Secan, '88 Schwinn Premis , Black Mountain Cycles Monstercross V4, '89 Novara Trionfo
Mentioned: 123 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10943 Post(s)
Liked 7,469 Times
in
4,179 Posts
Hmm. Strange you think I have an agenda. I'd been operating on the belief that carbon is superior to all metal frame materials as a race bike due to power transfer. I found a study that seemed to dispel this belief and was curious as to what caused it. In the proceeding post I provided an experiment that exemplified carbon was indeed superior to metal (this experiment was derided as well.) Why would I do that if I had an agenda? I'm just genuinely curious.
And while I do have issues with the modern bike industry, it's not due to the use of carbon fiber...
And while I do have issues with the modern bike industry, it's not due to the use of carbon fiber...
There, thats all.
10-27-22, 07:23 AM
#129
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 39,201
Mentioned: 211 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18393 Post(s)
Liked 15,465 Times
in
7,306 Posts
I am one that believes that people can be sold anything and that so called "bike journalists" and "bike reviewers" are terrible. They are all just recycling the same old crap and use the same lines that are just comically silly.
For example, this review: "At 8.04kg... is a fairly weighty machine by today’s standards, and a lot of that weight does come from the frame – a claimed 1,380g for a medium, about half a kilo up on the top-end carbon weenies. When climbing and accelerating that weight predictably tells."
That is basically the difference in a water bottle. I doubt anyone ever says during a ride, "man, I must be out of water, I can feel the lightness of the bike from the loss of those 500 grams".
You see this all the time with steel bike reviews. Everything people say is just trope BS to fill space.
Could a steel or aluminum bike from 20 years ago be just as fast as a carbon bike from today? Sure. But I would also bet that todays bike is better in many other ways. And yes, you most likely could "update" the bike frame to be similar to the modern bike - but that is often not cost effective.
Bike companies - like all companies are trying to sell you something. They will lie to you and use "journalist" to sell things to you. We are seeing it now with the stupid Canyon steering system.
For example, this review: "At 8.04kg... is a fairly weighty machine by today’s standards, and a lot of that weight does come from the frame – a claimed 1,380g for a medium, about half a kilo up on the top-end carbon weenies. When climbing and accelerating that weight predictably tells."
That is basically the difference in a water bottle. I doubt anyone ever says during a ride, "man, I must be out of water, I can feel the lightness of the bike from the loss of those 500 grams".
You see this all the time with steel bike reviews. Everything people say is just trope BS to fill space.
Could a steel or aluminum bike from 20 years ago be just as fast as a carbon bike from today? Sure. But I would also bet that todays bike is better in many other ways. And yes, you most likely could "update" the bike frame to be similar to the modern bike - but that is often not cost effective.
Bike companies - like all companies are trying to sell you something. They will lie to you and use "journalist" to sell things to you. We are seeing it now with the stupid Canyon steering system.
Years ago, when 1x drivetrains were starting to gain steam, there was a piece in Adventure Cycling’s magazine. A representative from SRAM told us that a triple four touring is terrible.
I was shocked to learn that I had not actually had a great time for 10,000 with my triple.
Likes For indyfabz:
10-27-22, 07:25 AM
#130
Sunshine
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Des Moines, IA
Posts: 16,601
Bikes: '18 class built steel roadbike, '19 Fairlight Secan, '88 Schwinn Premis , Black Mountain Cycles Monstercross V4, '89 Novara Trionfo
Mentioned: 123 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10943 Post(s)
Liked 7,469 Times
in
4,179 Posts
I am one that believes that people can be sold anything and that so called "bike journalists" and "bike reviewers" are terrible. They are all just recycling the same old crap and use the same lines that are just comically silly.
For example, this review: "At 8.04kg... is a fairly weighty machine by today’s standards, and a lot of that weight does come from the frame – a claimed 1,380g for a medium, about half a kilo up on the top-end carbon weenies. When climbing and accelerating that weight predictably tells."
That is basically the difference in a water bottle. I doubt anyone ever says during a ride, "man, I must be out of water, I can feel the lightness of the bike from the loss of those 500 grams".
You see this all the time with steel bike reviews. Everything people say is just trope BS to fill space.
Could a steel or aluminum bike from 20 years ago be just as fast as a carbon bike from today? Sure. But I would also bet that todays bike is better in many other ways. And yes, you most likely could "update" the bike frame to be similar to the modern bike - but that is often not cost effective.
Bike companies - like all companies are trying to sell you something. They will lie to you and use "journalist" to sell things to you. We are seeing it now with the stupid Canyon steering system.
For example, this review: "At 8.04kg... is a fairly weighty machine by today’s standards, and a lot of that weight does come from the frame – a claimed 1,380g for a medium, about half a kilo up on the top-end carbon weenies. When climbing and accelerating that weight predictably tells."
That is basically the difference in a water bottle. I doubt anyone ever says during a ride, "man, I must be out of water, I can feel the lightness of the bike from the loss of those 500 grams".
You see this all the time with steel bike reviews. Everything people say is just trope BS to fill space.
Could a steel or aluminum bike from 20 years ago be just as fast as a carbon bike from today? Sure. But I would also bet that todays bike is better in many other ways. And yes, you most likely could "update" the bike frame to be similar to the modern bike - but that is often not cost effective.
Bike companies - like all companies are trying to sell you something. They will lie to you and use "journalist" to sell things to you. We are seeing it now with the stupid Canyon steering system.
10-27-22, 07:30 AM
#131
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2021
Posts: 4,083
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2332 Post(s)
Liked 2,097 Times
in
1,314 Posts
M first carbon bike was in 1985 and it was much faster than my 1972 Masi GC. Each carbon bike that I have owned is faster and faster than the last due to aerodynamics, not weight.
Likes For GhostRider62:
10-27-22, 09:33 AM
#132
Friendship is Magic
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 22,983
Bikes: old ones
Mentioned: 304 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26374 Post(s)
Liked 10,347 Times
in
7,189 Posts
I am one that believes that people can be sold anything and that so called "bike journalists" and "bike reviewers" are terrible. They are all just recycling the same old crap and use the same lines that are just comically silly.
For example, this review: "At 8.04kg... is a fairly weighty machine by today’s standards, and a lot of that weight does come from the frame – a claimed 1,380g for a medium, about half a kilo up on the top-end carbon weenies. When climbing and accelerating that weight predictably tells."
That is basically the difference in a water bottle. I doubt anyone ever says during a ride, "man, I must be out of water, I can feel the lightness of the bike from the loss of those 500 grams".
.
For example, this review: "At 8.04kg... is a fairly weighty machine by today’s standards, and a lot of that weight does come from the frame – a claimed 1,380g for a medium, about half a kilo up on the top-end carbon weenies. When climbing and accelerating that weight predictably tells."
That is basically the difference in a water bottle. I doubt anyone ever says during a ride, "man, I must be out of water, I can feel the lightness of the bike from the loss of those 500 grams".
.
__________________
10-27-22, 09:34 AM
#133
Full Member
Thread Starter
IKR. I know a guy who used to own a LBS. At one point he noted that, at the time, the weight difference between Ultegra and Dura Ace was something like a half full water bottle.
Years ago, when 1x drivetrains were starting to gain steam, there was a piece in Adventure Cycling’s magazine. A representative from SRAM told us that a triple four touring is terrible. I was shocked to learn that I had not actually had a great time for 10,000 with my triple.
Years ago, when 1x drivetrains were starting to gain steam, there was a piece in Adventure Cycling’s magazine. A representative from SRAM told us that a triple four touring is terrible.
I was shocked to learn that I had not actually had a great time for 10,000 with my triple.Other than the environmental impact, I have nothing against carbon fiber and believe it to be an ideal material for racing (as long as you're not on a limited budget.)
Last edited by amazinmets73; 10-27-22 at 09:39 AM.
10-27-22, 09:36 AM
#134
Full Member
Thread Starter
I'd still like to know if amazinmets73 actually races bikes, or is just a cosplayer.
10-27-22, 09:36 AM
#135
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 7,826
Mentioned: 37 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6927 Post(s)
Liked 10,930 Times
in
4,667 Posts
...this was a major side topic in that old thread in road, the one that went 450 posts. It quickly reached the tmi stage, when people started posting about how they could save more weight by taking a big dump right before they ride. From there it proceeded to more graphic speculation on just how much weight could be saved, and stuff like that. I am too refined for that sort of thing, so I need to be careful where I hang out.
Likes For Koyote:
10-27-22, 09:37 AM
#136
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 7,826
Mentioned: 37 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6927 Post(s)
Liked 10,930 Times
in
4,667 Posts
Likes For Koyote:
10-27-22, 09:38 AM
#137
Full Member
Thread Starter
I am one that believes that people can be sold anything and that so called "bike journalists" and "bike reviewers" are terrible. They are all just recycling the same old crap and use the same lines that are just comically silly.
For example, this review: "At 8.04kg... is a fairly weighty machine by today’s standards, and a lot of that weight does come from the frame – a claimed 1,380g for a medium, about half a kilo up on the top-end carbon weenies. When climbing and accelerating that weight predictably tells."
That is basically the difference in a water bottle. I doubt anyone ever says during a ride, "man, I must be out of water, I can feel the lightness of the bike from the loss of those 500 grams".
You see this all the time with steel bike reviews. Everything people say is just trope BS to fill space.
Could a steel or aluminum bike from 20 years ago be just as fast as a carbon bike from today? Sure. But I would also bet that todays bike is better in many other ways. And yes, you most likely could "update" the bike frame to be similar to the modern bike - but that is often not cost effective.
Bike companies - like all companies are trying to sell you something. They will lie to you and use "journalist" to sell things to you. We are seeing it now with the stupid Canyon steering system.
For example, this review: "At 8.04kg... is a fairly weighty machine by today’s standards, and a lot of that weight does come from the frame – a claimed 1,380g for a medium, about half a kilo up on the top-end carbon weenies. When climbing and accelerating that weight predictably tells."
That is basically the difference in a water bottle. I doubt anyone ever says during a ride, "man, I must be out of water, I can feel the lightness of the bike from the loss of those 500 grams".
You see this all the time with steel bike reviews. Everything people say is just trope BS to fill space.
Could a steel or aluminum bike from 20 years ago be just as fast as a carbon bike from today? Sure. But I would also bet that todays bike is better in many other ways. And yes, you most likely could "update" the bike frame to be similar to the modern bike - but that is often not cost effective.
Bike companies - like all companies are trying to sell you something. They will lie to you and use "journalist" to sell things to you. We are seeing it now with the stupid Canyon steering system.
10-27-22, 09:44 AM
#138
Full Member
Thread Starter
If you weren't trying to link the op "study" to a larger agenda about the bike industry, why would you post the above that makes that link explicit?
I'm going to take you at your word that you weren't just trolling for a fight, but you really are trying to evade responsibility for why it turned out that way. You posed a question in the op requesting an explanation of the results of the "study" you linked to. So far no problem. When it was pointed out to you that this was really just an incompetent attempt to draw conclusions from a completely dubious experimental setup, you moved the goalposts to demanding someone produce studies that disproved the assertions rather than seriously discussing how hard such a study would be to design.
I disagree with a lot of posters on this thread that the subject is already done. It makes sense to me to occasionally revisit a "x vs. y" issue because technologies, product lines and economies change over time, and we also get more experience with the newer technologies, so it's nice to get some more informed perspectives than were possible a few years ago. I think that's a serious conversation, but I don't think that's what you framed here when you won't concede that the people who bothered to take apart the "study" had a point.
I'm also getting rather sick of the holier than thou crowd that seems to believe that they are the only ones who can disagree with people's opinions without it being trolling. If you don't want to argue about your opinions, don't post them in a forum of people who obviously will have their own opinions.
I'm going to take you at your word that you weren't just trolling for a fight, but you really are trying to evade responsibility for why it turned out that way. You posed a question in the op requesting an explanation of the results of the "study" you linked to. So far no problem. When it was pointed out to you that this was really just an incompetent attempt to draw conclusions from a completely dubious experimental setup, you moved the goalposts to demanding someone produce studies that disproved the assertions rather than seriously discussing how hard such a study would be to design.
I disagree with a lot of posters on this thread that the subject is already done. It makes sense to me to occasionally revisit a "x vs. y" issue because technologies, product lines and economies change over time, and we also get more experience with the newer technologies, so it's nice to get some more informed perspectives than were possible a few years ago. I think that's a serious conversation, but I don't think that's what you framed here when you won't concede that the people who bothered to take apart the "study" had a point.
I'm also getting rather sick of the holier than thou crowd that seems to believe that they are the only ones who can disagree with people's opinions without it being trolling. If you don't want to argue about your opinions, don't post them in a forum of people who obviously will have their own opinions.
10-27-22, 09:44 AM
#139
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
Bike weight is so silly for people not racing. I always tell people that if you are not concerned about your clothing weight, don't worry about your bike weight.
10-27-22, 09:46 AM
#140
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: US
Posts: 811
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 408 Post(s)
Liked 184 Times
in
120 Posts
Bike racing has ruined bicycle riding. The obsession to climb a hill is a close second.
This occurs in white water paddling, Some paddle harder and harder rivers until somebody drowns. Then everyone rediscovers the river is pleasure enough in and of itself.
This occurs in white water paddling, Some paddle harder and harder rivers until somebody drowns. Then everyone rediscovers the river is pleasure enough in and of itself.
10-27-22, 09:59 AM
#141
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,655
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1242 Post(s)
Liked 1,318 Times
in
671 Posts
I am one that believes that people can be sold anything and that so called "bike journalists" and "bike reviewers" are terrible. They are all just recycling the same old crap and use the same lines that are just comically silly.
For example, this review: "At 8.04kg... is a fairly weighty machine by today’s standards, and a lot of that weight does come from the frame – a claimed 1,380g for a medium, about half a kilo up on the top-end carbon weenies. When climbing and accelerating that weight predictably tells."
That is basically the difference in a water bottle. I doubt anyone ever says during a ride, "man, I must be out of water, I can feel the lightness of the bike from the loss of those 500 grams".
You see this all the time with steel bike reviews. Everything people say is just trope BS to fill space.
Could a steel or aluminum bike from 20 years ago be just as fast as a carbon bike from today? Sure. But I would also bet that todays bike is better in many other ways. And yes, you most likely could "update" the bike frame to be similar to the modern bike - but that is often not cost effective.
Bike companies - like all companies are trying to sell you something. They will lie to you and use "journalist" to sell things to you. We are seeing it now with the stupid Canyon steering system.
For example, this review: "At 8.04kg... is a fairly weighty machine by today’s standards, and a lot of that weight does come from the frame – a claimed 1,380g for a medium, about half a kilo up on the top-end carbon weenies. When climbing and accelerating that weight predictably tells."
That is basically the difference in a water bottle. I doubt anyone ever says during a ride, "man, I must be out of water, I can feel the lightness of the bike from the loss of those 500 grams".
You see this all the time with steel bike reviews. Everything people say is just trope BS to fill space.
Could a steel or aluminum bike from 20 years ago be just as fast as a carbon bike from today? Sure. But I would also bet that todays bike is better in many other ways. And yes, you most likely could "update" the bike frame to be similar to the modern bike - but that is often not cost effective.
Bike companies - like all companies are trying to sell you something. They will lie to you and use "journalist" to sell things to you. We are seeing it now with the stupid Canyon steering system.
Likes For Atlas Shrugged:
10-27-22, 10:02 AM
#142
Habitual User
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Altadena, CA
Posts: 7,928
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: 4912 Post(s)
Liked 8,012 Times
in
3,789 Posts
So I recently completed a carbon bike build and I was really surprised at how comfortable the thing was. Much more than my Alu or steel bikes.
btw, between alu and steel I could tell no difference aside from the skinny tubes being a little nicer to carry. But full carbon there definitely is something there.
btw, between alu and steel I could tell no difference aside from the skinny tubes being a little nicer to carry. But full carbon there definitely is something there.
Coming to a conclusive answer on which frame material is faster has way too many variables to be able to test in the real world, and at the end of the day, it usually comes down to the human.
__________________
"Swedish fish. They're protein shaped." - livedarklions
"Swedish fish. They're protein shaped." - livedarklions
Likes For Eric F:
10-27-22, 10:08 AM
#144
Grupetto Bob
Join Date: Sep 2020
Location: Seattle-ish
Posts: 6,166
Bikes: Bikey McBike Face
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2555 Post(s)
Liked 5,579 Times
in
2,895 Posts
NumbersGuy, don’t waste your breath or time on them, because they will just twist it around on you. Bullies and trolls can’t and won’t change their stripes no matter how logical your approach. BTDT. The best thing to do is put them on your Ignore list. It makes this a much more pleasant place.
__________________
Road 🚴🏾♂️ & Mountain 🚵🏾♂️
Road 🚴🏾♂️ & Mountain 🚵🏾♂️
Likes For rsbob:
10-27-22, 10:11 AM
#145
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2021
Posts: 4,083
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2332 Post(s)
Liked 2,097 Times
in
1,314 Posts
But you do understand that the biggest impact on aerodynamics is not the bike, but the person? Your position on the bike has much greater impact than anything "aero" on the bike. Heck, your clothing has a much greater impact than anything "aero" on the bike.
Bike weight is so silly for people not racing. I always tell people that if you are not concerned about your clothing weight, don't worry about your bike weight.
Bike weight is so silly for people not racing. I always tell people that if you are not concerned about your clothing weight, don't worry about your bike weight.
10-27-22, 10:18 AM
#146
Zircon Encrusted Tweezers
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: high ground
Posts: 1,346
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 260 Post(s)
Liked 127 Times
in
82 Posts
But you do understand that the biggest impact on aerodynamics is not the bike, but the person? Your position on the bike has much greater impact than anything "aero" on the bike. Heck, your clothing has a much greater impact than anything "aero" on the bike.
Bike weight is so silly for people not racing. I always tell people that if you are not concerned about your clothing weight, don't worry about your bike weight.
Bike weight is so silly for people not racing. I always tell people that if you are not concerned about your clothing weight, don't worry about your bike weight.
If bike B has lower drag than bike A, and both bikes position the rider identically, then bike B is faster, no?
I don't think anyone is credibly disputing that the rider's body drag is dominant, and that it's a function of its size, position, orientation, and surface characteristics (e.g. clothing not flapping or billowing matters a lot).
10-27-22, 10:25 AM
#147
Habitual User
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Altadena, CA
Posts: 7,928
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: 4912 Post(s)
Liked 8,012 Times
in
3,789 Posts
In order to come to any kind of conclusion about the material itself, you would need to eliminate as many variables as possible. You would also have to establish what "equal" means - Mass? Frontal area? Tube size/shape?... CF material can be manipulated in ways that metals can't, and can be made into more rigid structures with less mass. This seems like an unreasonable comparison to a round-tube steel frame, if you're trying to establish which frame material makes a bike faster. Comparing these two would (we could expect) lead to a conclusion that the CF frame is faster, which would (likely) be because of aerodynamic advantages and less weight. Yet, put the same human, on the same route, on those two different bikes, and you might come up with opposite results simply due to the inconsistency of human performance. Testing many times under the same conditions might lead to some pattern, but you would have to disguise the bikes somehow so the human is blind on which material they are riding so as not to influence the result with their subjective opinion.
__________________
"Swedish fish. They're protein shaped." - livedarklions
"Swedish fish. They're protein shaped." - livedarklions
10-27-22, 10:26 AM
#148
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: Wake Forest, NC
Posts: 5,740
Bikes: 1989 Cinelli Supercorsa
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3482 Post(s)
Liked 2,903 Times
in
1,764 Posts
10-27-22, 10:30 AM
#149
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2021
Posts: 4,083
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2332 Post(s)
Liked 2,097 Times
in
1,314 Posts
Personally, I would say three. CdA, weight, and stack of the frame. My older steel bikes put my body into a less aero position (more stack relatively) that many of the carbon bikes. Presumes both bikes fit properly.
Now, some would argue for the 4th "dimension". Planing.
Now, some would argue for the 4th "dimension". Planing.
10-27-22, 11:07 AM
#150
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 7,826
Mentioned: 37 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6927 Post(s)
Liked 10,930 Times
in
4,667 Posts
