Originally Posted by Campag4life (Post 17686389)

A consumer has a choice of what to buy. A racer to paid to shut up and ride what they are given.

I also hope you aren't suggesting that this discussion doesn't matter. These considerations in fact are the underpinning of why bikes have improved so much...every frame material. A tremendous amount of technical analysis. Its just, the article is basically crap is the point.

I have a friend who lives in my complex and used to race for Trek. We ride together once in a while and he is still a good rider. His current bike is a carbon Pinarello.
He knows a lot about bikes and we have some interesting discussions about geometry, material, fit etc.
We share a similar view of fit for example in that he doesn't ride real slammed and loves to ride in the drops like I do.

He told me when the first carbon Madones came out and he was given one to race how much he hated the bike. He couldn't stand the BB. This guy is a beefy sprinter type. So he rode an Aluminum Trek when others were switching to the Madone because he hated the bottom bracket. Early Madones weren't exactly loved as many recall. Early carbon wasn't very good but that all has changed.

Originally Posted by roadwarrior (Post 17686435)

Trek's early carbon would have been the 5000 series (5200-5500-5900) with the round tubes and tuning fork seat stays. At that point, many were still riding aluminum. And compared to what we have today, the ride was not great. But then riding a steel frame over cobbles was not real comfortable, but that was state of the art back then and you didn't know any better.
My point is simply that some of this stuff takes things to the extreme. It's pretty meaningless for the average guy who wants a road bike. Basically, most folks want a pretty forgiving bike with a comfortable geometry that fits properly.

Originally Posted by Campag4life (Post 17686453)

I rarely disagree with you because I consider you an expert. But we don't agree here. Choice of a road bike may matter more to a weaker rider in not only frame material but geometry. The difference between an Al Cervelo Soloist not only in terms of geometry and riding position but stiffness and say any carbon endurance geometry is 'night and day' in terms of the comfort and even performance of the average rider. So this discussion doesn't matter a little, but rather a lot. Bicycles can have very different personalities just like their riders and a good match is transformative to the riding experience. Perhaps the argument and one you made earlier about top riders or racers...maybe not so much. After all, racers are all fit guys who prefer stiff and a bit more slammed geometries and therefore their choice of bike maybe a bit more homogenous.

Originally Posted by qclabrat (Post 17686508)

might Block944 be Blair, Hastings, Culligan or an associate?
does clicking the link contribute to the defense of a grant proposal?

Originally Posted by Campag4life (Post 17686352)

Chaad...you seem to be one of the only guys here actually defending the article. To me, the study is rubbish. Lots of guys here with a science background that believe the article is fraught with improper boundary conditions to make any reasonable conclusions. Include me. The range of geometry for any of the materials will negate or promote if not expose the strengths and weakness of different materials...and yet 3 distinct geometries and 3 materials from a single manufacturer are used to judge the properties of three common bike materials. A steel bike can be made stiffer than Al or carbon...of course it will be boat anchor heavy. Easy to make a carbon bike stiffer than any of the materials because it is the strongest and stiffest material....or an Al bike even though it is the weakest material. The Vitus proves one can design a Al bike to ride like a trampoline. I have owned steel bikes that ride like a pogo stick over bumps, my latest Reynolds Bianchi was that way in fact and I could easily rub the front derailleur out of the saddle and I am no brute.. My current road bike mutes bumps better than any bike I have owned previous and it is 3 x's more stiff than the Bianchi laterally. There should be no debate as which material damps high frequency vibration better. Its non metallic carbon fiber. There is also further conflation of what constitutes ride quality. Is it attenuation of high frequency? Not necessarily. Specialized with their Zertz + carbon quells high frequency vibration probably better than any bike out there but there is a VAST difference in ride quality between a SL2 Roubaix and a SL4. In fact there has been an outcry from Roubaix loyalists that Specialized made the new SL4 too stiff. It has poorer ride quality than the SL2 which rides like a whippy steel bike only lighter and without the energy transfer of the SL4. Geometry matters a lot and perhaps even trumps material when it comes to ride characteristics. But no mistake, material is a BIG player when it comes to the performance and personality of a bike.

Lets take aluminum for example. Lets say that Cervelo makes a crappy aluminum bike. Most know the Soloist for example is a very stiff bike...has a VERY stiff ride. Btw, there is further conflation if not lack of differentiation between vertical stiffness normally considered important for ride quality and laterial stiffness important for energy transfer. This isn't even addressed in the article. The Soloist is VERY vertically stiff and not stiff laterally compared to many top racing frames. This is because of its aero tube sections. So the Soloist bike feels stiff but actually isn't when it comes to transferring power from the pedals to the rear wheel...the other aspect of the article woefully misrepresented. Also, how can it be that the softest material in the study aka Aluminum had the best energy transfer...even better than carbon? Many don't know that Aluminum is soft. And yet generally Aluminum bikes have a stiff ride. Aluminum has the lowest modulus of elasticity of either carbon fiber or steel. That is a fact. And yet, a Solist rides like a covered wagon. This is because of the geometry. The Vitus was mentioned which sometimes comes up in these types of discussions. And now the CAAD10 has arrived which many believe is the best race bike for the cash...although the Spesh Allez gives it a run for the money. They are different, in fact so radically different in ride quality, its almost hard to believe they are made from the same material and yet they are. Geometry matters a lot when is comes to vibration damping and ride quality and energy transfer from pedal to drive wheel and the article doesn't even address the root cause.
But make no mistake which material quells vibration better. Its the epoxy matrix in carbon fiber. It natively damps vibration. I mentioned the Allez which is considered one if not the best Al race bike on the market. Comparing it to its carbon brother...the Tarmac, there is no comparison in ride quality....the Tarmac as stiff as it is and it has world class stiffness as a premier race bike...it absorbs bumps and attenuates road shock better than the Al Allez.

Can I ask your science background?

Originally Posted by dr_lha (Post 17686608)

As someone who has written many grant proposals, I can guarantee that "clicks" has never been a metric that has contributed to continued funding! :D

Originally Posted by qclabrat (Post 17686643)

we've been collecting website data for some education grants we're planning for
Not the only metric but helps to tell the big picture
Doesn't everyone like charts and graphs? ;)

Originally Posted by chaadster (Post 17686634)

I've said as much as I can say about the interpretation of the article, and have no interest in repeating what I've stated multiple times already. The fact that you've said more here, in the one post, than was written in the study itself, reaffirms my belief you guys are ascribing more to the study than it was designed to address.

Originally Posted by chaadster (Post 17686634)

The fact that you've said more here, in the one post, than was written in the study itself, reaffirms my belief you guys are ascribing more to the study than it was designed to address.

Originally Posted by a77impala (Post 17689261)

I have had bikes that beat me to death, other bikes with the same frame material that ride like silk. It's not the material but the design, imho.

Originally Posted by roadwarrior (Post 17689552)

For example not all aluminum is created equal. A CAAD10 due mostly to the alloy in the aluminum is what created the ride quality versus, say, any entry level aluminum frame. So it's a combination, but the alloy change made a big difference between the CAAD9 and 10 in vibration absorption.

Originally Posted by dr_lha (Post 17686635)

FYI looking into this a bit more, it looks like this research is >10 years old (from 2004). I believe that the first author was a MIT grad student at the time, and this is I think a Masters Thesis work.

Originally Posted by Block944 (Post 17690227)

Duh?

You think mit is coming out with their own bike line and trying to sway customers.. You dumb dumbs.

Originally Posted by dr_lha (Post 17690253)

No I don't think that. You seem to have some basic issues with English comprehension. MIT grad? ;)

Originally Posted by Block944 (Post 17690407)

Ok mr. Nobody.