• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

What sort of tech do YOU guys like to read about?

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jun 16, 2009
860
0
0
Visit site
i really enjoy the Pro bikes, especially those rebadged tubulars.
One thing that i would love to see is how a bike ages.
Most readers and alot of racers bikes are a few years old and there are alot of used bikes on the market. I remember one carbon fiber bike that was great new , stiff in all the right places but after one season it had turned into a wet noodle.
Also a retrospective would be nice, like a road test with say 4 different bikes that won the same race. Compare Tour of Flanders winning bikes from 1995 2000 2005 and this years winner.
 
Slumdog-Zomergem said:
Colnago doesn't really need Pro Team exposure , their mainstream buyers are doctors , lawyers, etc & I would hazard a guess that 75% of Colnago owners will never enter a race so if some Ukrainian superstar is using the brand is pretty irrelevant to them.

Win on Sunday, sell on Monday. True for bicycles as well as Chevys.
 
Mar 13, 2009
2,890
0
0
Visit site
tech geekery

As much as the australians here love "RIDE" their reviews pale next to "tour magazin" from germany. Generally bikes are compared in the same size (really important when comparing stiffness), it is the exception that they aren't. Then weight is compared, stiffness, compliance of both frame and fork...along with a ride review. This is also done for components, I have somewhere, numbers for fatigue tests on cranksets and handlebars and stems. Honestly don't know how the bike companies let them publish the data...I guess because when it comes down to it...the general punter has no idea how much faster you go on a 114Nm/degree bike to a 65NM/degree, etc

I guess the jersey system of rating is flawed in that how many jerseys do you give old Dura ace vs new? The review was great, outlining strengths and weaknesses. Maybe rate each element of function. Do you know who does this? good guess. As a complete tech geek I have to love the germans.
 
Mar 12, 2009
553
0
0
Visit site
karlboss said:
..I guess because when it comes down to it...the general punter has no idea how much faster you go on a 114Nm/degree bike to a 65NM/degree, etc..

That's because it makes no real measurable difference. It may feel different, but that's about it. And feeling is a horrible metric.
 
Mar 13, 2009
2,890
0
0
Visit site
Tapeworm said:
That's because it makes no real measurable difference. It may feel different, but that's about it. And feeling is a horrible metric.

what if i could quantify it in terms of seconds per 40km? with a few more measurements for different crank angles and making an assumption of no lateral slip with the rear tyre its possible, sprinting this may be inaccurate, but for TT and climbing it could be reasonably so.
 
Mar 12, 2009
553
0
0
Visit site
karlboss said:
what if i could quantify it in terms of seconds per 40km? with a few more measurements for different crank angles and making an assumption of no lateral slip with the rear tyre its possible, sprinting this may be inaccurate, but for TT and climbing it could be reasonably so.

If you can prove it, then by all means.

But in terms of actual power losses through frame or crank flex it's negligible. Those are more versed in physics have worked it in the past, I think from your most noodley steel frame to your stiffest carbon frame @ 400 watts, IIRC, it's about 0.25% of power lost. You'd lose more by wearing a jersey one size too large. The exception is for when items come in contact with others, such as wheels, rubbing on the brake pad is just not good.
 
Mar 13, 2009
2,890
0
0
Visit site
James Huang said:
Tapeworm:

Got any links to those studies? I'd be curious to see that test protocol.

+1 Agree, again the beautiful thing about tour, they publish their test protocols also including photos of their test bed.

and can I prove it...I believe I can. I haven't but with the right resources I'm almost certain I could provide useful answers...James any jobs going?
 
Mar 12, 2009
553
0
0
Visit site
James Huang said:
Tapeworm:

Got any links to those studies? I'd be curious to see that test protocol.

Alas, you're going to make a liar out of me, cuz I can't find it again. BUT the last credible person who posted some very detailed formulae on the Weight Weenies site was this dude (Scienceiscool):-

http://www.bikephysics.com/


But just to take a more psychological standpoint on the whole stiffness thing. What is more credible, that the difference from one frame to the next is negligible or that this frame is SO much better because the frame manufacturers tell us stiffness is better? Aerodynamics is far easier, whack something in a wind tunnel, get some data. Though I am yet to see any bike manufacturers to say you WILL save 10% power or the like because of stiffness. Probably, at least if the above is to be believed (and I do), because the difference is too tiny to mention.

My meagre knowledge of physics would concur with this, if the frame flexes the energy goes somewhere, either it springs back nearly 100% of it, or the frame heats up, or something. It just doesn't disappear. Unless of course there is, as mentioned, brake rub or the like. And this is easy to account for.
 
Mar 13, 2009
2,890
0
0
Visit site
i don't want to hijack a thread, but if a bottom bracket is no longer straight up and down, do you think pushing down on the pedal all you energy is propelling you forward? BTW my physics and material science is pretty solid.
 

Latest posts