This still means it comes down to opinion, not science.
People have a broad range of ride preferences, and I'm not convinced there are as many differences as people think.

Put the same accelerometers on a single frame, you may have a way to rate tires and wheels.

why use outside items in the experiment at all? if you want to test the frame material, then you should use only the frame.
setup a jig that holds a frame on a vibration table and take your measreuements and then simply plug in the next frame when your done.

pretty simple test if all you want to do is get vibration results.

Part 1: There is an area of study that is the subjective responses of the human body to vibratory motion. Define it as opinion or science if you want. That's a separate debate. You essentially end up with a graph of vibration frequency vs. vibration amplitude. People tolerate more amplitude if the frequency is lower, and less amplitude as the frequency increases. There are several levels of response that vary from 'perceptbile' to 'disagreeable' to 'intolerable'.

It is entirely possible that the ride preferences due to frame design are small to the point of vanishing. I've ridden bikes that would make me question your hypothesis, but I'm willing to accept it as a starting point. If that is the case, then it is worth finding out. At that point a manufacturer knows they can build the frame any way they want to and worry about optimizing other aspects of the design while not having to sacrifice ride quality.

Part 2: Instrumenting a frame and testing a variety of tires and/or wheels would also be an interesting project, and completely worthwhile to a manufacturer IMO. So if that is a worth study, why is it such a stretch to leave the wheels/tires constant and swap frames?

Have a look.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmoEc...eature=related

It's exactly what's going on here. You couldn't do it in a jig. it would have to have the rider on it (for proper weight) and have the wheels and tires on it, because they're a big part of the equation. Having said that, it's a completely valid approach.

Ultimately, though, it might be more expensive to take this approach.

I think whoever taught you guys statistics and the scientific method should be tarred and feathered, and run out of town on rails. :eek:

You're forgiven if you slept through that part of the class. It's understandable...

Your remedial homework before next class is to define the following terms: independent variable, dependent variable, reliability and validity

For extra credit, compare and contrast "statistically significant differences" and "meaningful differences" in measurements.

;)

I don't know if this is pointed towards me, but I agree with you. We just haven't gotten to this point in the conversation.

The conversation should have STARTED with this notion: is it possible to quantify the differences in materials characteristics such that we could predict differences in perceived ride quality? The answer is "no", btw.

Instead, this topic started with an arrogant insult to all of bf, an ironic slam on all the "opinions" and "lack of data", and then followed by a painful mangling of well-established investigatory methods in the pursuit of a gilded lily.

God, I love this place! :D

FWIW, I doubt there are trained professional "bicycle butts" who evaluate differences in frame materials. I think bike designers and builders consider materials available to them (and what would sell), and make what they like, check it out with their friends, run it by a pro bike rider of three, then hand it over to the marketing dept., in some order or another. Or to put it another way, "this ain't rocket surgery!" :thumb:

My guess is that they go for a certain handling characteristic, which can be predicted to a pretty high level, then they let the team riders try it out, make a few changes, and you have a bike.

The version released to the paying public is just a modified version based on production costs and what "bling" is big at the moment.

accelerometers or strain gauges?

Lol, you're looking for the Metrigear Vector thread...

Well, how kind of you to bestow your greatness upon us. It's a shame you didn't show up 5 pages ago and put this little question to rest earlier.


So, using a layman's approach to accomplish the same goal in a completely unscientific manner should somehow be preferred? You realize, of course, that there's more scientific approaches to coffee bean roasting than what you propose.

Interesting read:

http://web.mit.edu/2.tha/www/ppt/Bike-ISEA.pdf

http://cozybeehive.blogspot.com/2008...s-by-vlus.html

comments?

Good read! :thumb:

I'll accept a certain amount of snarkiness in return, no probem! ;) I wasn't criticizing you, really the OP's whole first post. He was miffed about the lack of "scientific analysis" yet has nothing to offer except more opinion.

Sure, plenty of research involves operationalizing difficult to quantify variables, which is all you have when you're trying to assess (and predict) "ride quality". That's why more rigorous methodology is essential in research design, to make sure you're close to measuring what you say you are.

I like your reference, btw, about the coffee bean roasting. Just like with bike design, you can easily quantify and control many elements of the roasting process. Just don't confuse that with making good coffee.

It's an order of magnitude more difficult to find reliable and valid measures of "good coffee". Just like with bikes, give a hundred people the same cup of coffee, and you're going to get a very wide range of responses when you ask them how they like it.

Bike designers and builders are obviously in the ball park with what they make, so they must be on to something with the materials they use and how they use them. I just don't think anyone can build a bike that pleases everyone who rides it. This suggests that, in the end, it's still subjective and impossible to predict with any certainty what will create a "good ride".

/rambling

You do know that there are professional tasters that work for coffee companies, though, right? There opinions dictate what gets produced and how it's produced. Same deal with tea. Lipton, for instance, is very scientific in their approach and their taster's opinion is also backed up by chemical analysis of the final product. It's not unlike what we've proposed here.

While I agree that it would be completely impossible to create a bike that would be all things to all people, I don't think that would ever be the goal. The goal would be to produce the bike that would be most likely to be purchased by the market segment you're going for. Ride characteristics would be one part of appealing to that market segment.

Did you check out the links? It's at least good food for thought. Maybe something to read over a good coffee or tea.

interesting how the use of vocabulary expands when trying to show superior mental power over one another.

i like to speak like an idiot cause its easier to get my point across.

basically who cares what its made out of. ride what feels comfortable to you. take into account what people recommend, but make sure you put your derriere on the bike.

there are differences in a materials ability to dissipate vibration, but nothing you could honestly feel.

but of course someone will come along and try to trump my post, with fancy words. so i will end on this, its all about the wheels.

And wheelbase and fork rake have nothing to do with it? (were those words too fancy?)

haha. your smart. no they weren't too fancy but your lack of reading any of my previous posts shows that your just trying to start crap.
I will sum it up for you, i posted... for a frame, it comes down to geometry, not material choice.
i believe that wheels are more important than any of that when it comes to changing the way a bike feels over anything else you can do. if you disagree with that, well do some R&D. Its easy to jump into a thread and talk it up. just look a page or two back and you will see i posted exactly what you said also.

Research Protocol:
1) Literature review.
...

thanks, that post helped

Then, we get Starbuck's coffee, who uses cheaper beans than competitors, adds oils, roasts them to a crisp, re-frames the notion of 'good coffee' so their style/taste is the 'better' one to have in their messaging, then markets the crap out it.

Meanwhile, Peet's, who have better coffee by every single metric - quality of beans, method of prep, training of baristas, authentic drink styles, etc. have a fraction of the market.

Which one understands the basic materials of their craft more?
Which one has better, more accurate data about how to use those raw materials?
Which one have consumers chosen?

Measure and quantify all you want. Marketing trumps craft every time.

touche'

You should go with that. I think it's really working for you! :thumb:


Wheels, huh?

lol, yes. wheels.

Then why do you own a Schwinn Paramount instead of a Postal Trek or Cervelo or any other some such bike?