Carbon to Ti frame.
#26
I am potato.
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 3,116
Bikes: Only precision built, custom high performance elitist machines of the highest caliber. 🍆
Mentioned: 29 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1790 Post(s)
Liked 1,631 Times
in
934 Posts
Well, it is good to know that one single static property, in one single plane of a dynamic system is the end-all, be-all defining feature of the concept of "comfort." I consider myself schooled and will now throw away all of my steel, aluminum and carbon bikes. What a fool I was to percieve any differences in ride qualities or characteristics between any of them and translate that to comfort or performance.
Next time, I'm getting a $150 gas pipe WallyWorld special because clearly it is every bit as comfortable (as defined by vertical compliance of frame only) as my other bicycles of all manner of construction. It sure is a good thing I stopped in here to get all straightened out.
FWIW: The OP asked about the subjective differences of getting a smaller, better fitting frame. Not the specific merits of frame material on vertical compliance as it relates to "comfort." --Gotta luv BF <3
Next time, I'm getting a $150 gas pipe WallyWorld special because clearly it is every bit as comfortable (as defined by vertical compliance of frame only) as my other bicycles of all manner of construction. It sure is a good thing I stopped in here to get all straightened out.
FWIW: The OP asked about the subjective differences of getting a smaller, better fitting frame. Not the specific merits of frame material on vertical compliance as it relates to "comfort." --Gotta luv BF <3
Likes For base2:
#27
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 5,380
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2487 Post(s)
Liked 2,956 Times
in
1,679 Posts
Why It’s Impossible For Steel Frames To Be More Comfortable Than Aluminium
From that page:"There are very few tests that have measured the vertical deflection or 'comfort' of a bicycle frame by itself. That’s because experiments are almost always conducted using a seatpost inserted in a frame. After all, we don’t attach our seats directly to our top-tubes!In the 1990s, Bob Bundy did some deflection tests on four 80s road frames. These frames required between 7,158 and 14,316 newtons of force to flex the rear triangle just one vertical millimetre.
Let me put those numbers into context for you. A top carbon flex seatpost will deflect the same distance with just 69N force. That’s literally 100 to 200 times less force."
TC1's willingness to continue his efforts to educate is admirable. I rarely make the attempt any more. But, once more, here's my take on the subject:
The idea that bikes built of different materials differ in comfort arose, I believe, when Cannondale started selling affordable racing bikes with criterium geometry (their Crit series, with ultra-short wheelbase) in the late '80's. Before then, the only people who rode short-wheelbase road bikes were people like me, who raced on expensive mid-'80's Italian criterium-geometry bikes.
So when the Cannondale dealership where I worked started stocking the new Crit series bikes, they felt very familiar---same rocket-ship acceleration, same instant response for maneuvering in a pack. And exactly the same level of "comfort" (not really a word I'd apply to either the Italian steel bike or the Cannondale aluminum bike).
But most people buying the Crit series bikes had never ridden a criterium-geometry steel bike. Most were upgrading from some mid-level sport touring bike with a moderately long wheelbase. To many of those riders, the Crit Series bike felt fast---too fast, in handling terms---compared to the forgiving handling of their previous bike.
In my experience of riding high-end racing bikes since the early '60s, "comfort" equals wheelbase. Longer wheelbase equals more comfort, if that's what you're looking for. It's a crude but reliable measure. As with cars---longer wheelbase, more comfort.
All my bikes with a given wheelbase ride similarly. Frame material doesn't seem to matter. In fact, my favorite bike for all my rides (usually around 4 to 5 hours in length these days) is my fixed-gear Specialized Langster, with oversized aluminum frame and oversized aluminum straight-blade fork. I haven't ridden either of my remaining steel bikes (Reynolds 531 and 853) in 10 years at least.
Since there's no perceptible or measurable difference in comfort for a given wheelbase, all that matters to me is torsional and lateral compliance. The less, the better. As I say, I can't feel any difference in comfort between frame materials. But the difference in the tracking of the wheels and in resisting twisting forces through the handlebars is instantly obvious to me.
Steel bikes are fine. If you're looking for comfort, go for a bike with a sport-touring wheelbase. (They're now marketed as gravel bikes or endurance bikes, interestingly.) Me, I prefer a highly responsive bike, which is why I've switched to aluminum for my bike frames.
#28
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 749
Bikes: Dahon Jetstream p8 (sold), customized Dahon Helios x10, customzed Dahon Smooth Hound x11,customized Dahon Hammerhead 8.0 d7, Planet X Free Ranger (mullet setup 1x11), Planet X Giovanissimi 20 (1x9), Frog 52 (1x9) and Frog 48 1s
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 270 Post(s)
Liked 241 Times
in
177 Posts
This does not add compliance as shown by the fact that the tires on these bikes do not rub on the seatpost, and the cables do not slacken. It's marketing.
There are a raft of reasons why different tubing diameters are selected by manufacturers, but one of them is not vertical compliance. Aesthetics is a common one, as are ease of manufacturer, material cost, deflection in other planes, durability, and, of course, marketing.
No one is suggesting anything different from this statement -- of course bicycle frames differ in shape and dimension. What they do not differ in, as long as they are composed of a rigid double-triangle is that their resistance to deflection in the vertical plane far exceeds that of all of the components which are attached. And that renders that frame's vertical compliance irrelevant to the rider's comfort.
There are a raft of reasons why different tubing diameters are selected by manufacturers, but one of them is not vertical compliance. Aesthetics is a common one, as are ease of manufacturer, material cost, deflection in other planes, durability, and, of course, marketing.
No one is suggesting anything different from this statement -- of course bicycle frames differ in shape and dimension. What they do not differ in, as long as they are composed of a rigid double-triangle is that their resistance to deflection in the vertical plane far exceeds that of all of the components which are attached. And that renders that frame's vertical compliance irrelevant to the rider's comfort.
basically I either misunderstand what you are trying to explain or I fundamentally disagree.
as I said a frame will deform depending of the design (tube sizing, mounting/connecting point and material properties).
here is a basic final element simulation course using bike frame as an example:
solidworks and ansys will give similar results and yes, the frame deforms depending of the design…
now if you are trying to say the in many cases the frame flex is negligeable compared to the flex of the seatpost, stem, handlebar, fork, cranks then yes, it is most likely the case but this is not what i am reading from your posts.
edit: here is another thing by a licensed mechanical engineer
Last edited by Fentuz; 11-06-23 at 02:58 PM.
#29
Junior Member
You do if one is claiming that the small differences in vibration significantly effect rider comfort.
Not only does the rider not touch the frame, the rider does not touch any component that touches the frame -- so there's (at least) two levels of isolation between any part of the human rider's body, and the frame of the bicycle. Claiming that vibrations are faithfully reproduced across those interfaces is a claim of significant magic. Especially as regards the front end of the bicycle, where the frame is not even in the path which vibrations travel -- which is tire, rim, spoke, hub, axle, fork, stem, handlebar.
Not only does the rider not touch the frame, the rider does not touch any component that touches the frame -- so there's (at least) two levels of isolation between any part of the human rider's body, and the frame of the bicycle. Claiming that vibrations are faithfully reproduced across those interfaces is a claim of significant magic. Especially as regards the front end of the bicycle, where the frame is not even in the path which vibrations travel -- which is tire, rim, spoke, hub, axle, fork, stem, handlebar.
#30
Habitual User
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Altadena, CA
Posts: 7,997
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: 4957 Post(s)
Liked 8,099 Times
in
3,833 Posts
I'm saying that vibrations propagate, and are not limited to the materials in which they originate.
When one component vibrates it induces vibrations in all the other components connected to it, usually at different frequencies than the original vibration. Those vibrations may be amplified or damped, but they are transmitted to the other components. Vibrations are real, and you do feel them. The part that I don't know is whether having the handlebars vibrate at 430 hz and 514 hz and having the seat vibrate at 485 hz and 520 hz (numbers picked at random) will feel uncomfortable.
When one component vibrates it induces vibrations in all the other components connected to it, usually at different frequencies than the original vibration. Those vibrations may be amplified or damped, but they are transmitted to the other components. Vibrations are real, and you do feel them. The part that I don't know is whether having the handlebars vibrate at 430 hz and 514 hz and having the seat vibrate at 485 hz and 520 hz (numbers picked at random) will feel uncomfortable.
__________________
"Swedish fish. They're protein shaped." - livedarklions
"Swedish fish. They're protein shaped." - livedarklions
#31
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 5,380
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2487 Post(s)
Liked 2,956 Times
in
1,679 Posts
Likes For Trakhak:
#32
Junior Member
A 440 will also have harmonics at 220, 660, 880, 1320, 1760, etc. Depending on the natural frequency of any given component it may vibrate at any of those frequencies most strongly, or at an entirely different frequency. My hypothesis is that if, for example, the fundamental frequency of the "road buzz" is 440hz, and the natural frequency of the handlebars is 1320hz, then a steel or titanium frame will transmit and possibly amplify the 440hz buzz, but not the 1320hz buzz that would make the handlebars vibrate strongly. Carbon, and to a lesser extent aluminum, are more likely to vibrate at all related frequencies, this creating more perceived vibration.
#33
Habitual User
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Altadena, CA
Posts: 7,997
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: 4957 Post(s)
Liked 8,099 Times
in
3,833 Posts
I was rolling along with my buddy on his E 659 tuned bike. A guy came up behind us riding a C 523. I told him to move along. I don't ride with minors.
__________________
"Swedish fish. They're protein shaped." - livedarklions
"Swedish fish. They're protein shaped." - livedarklions
Likes For Eric F:
#35
Habitual User
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Altadena, CA
Posts: 7,997
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: 4957 Post(s)
Liked 8,099 Times
in
3,833 Posts
Likes For One Wheel:
#37
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 5,380
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2487 Post(s)
Liked 2,956 Times
in
1,679 Posts
A 440 will also have harmonics at 220, 660, 880, 1320, 1760, etc. Depending on the natural frequency of any given component it may vibrate at any of those frequencies most strongly, or at an entirely different frequency. My hypothesis is that if, for example, the fundamental frequency of the "road buzz" is 440hz, and the natural frequency of the handlebars is 1320hz, then a steel or titanium frame will transmit and possibly amplify the 440hz buzz, but not the 1320hz buzz that would make the handlebars vibrate strongly. Carbon, and to a lesser extent aluminum, are more likely to vibrate at all related frequencies, this creating more perceived vibration.
#38
Junior Member
Of course, aluminum and (especially) carbon are inherently superior at damping vibration. It's obvious if you flick your top tube with a fingernail; the steel tube (and, to a slightly lesser degree) the titanium tube will give a high-pitched "ping"; the aluminum will sound approximately as (un)resonant as an aluminum beer can; and the carbon tube will just "thunk."
#39
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 5,380
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2487 Post(s)
Liked 2,956 Times
in
1,679 Posts
The point is that less-dense materials damp vibration more effectively than denser materials. Keeping the topic in the realm of bicycles, bike bells made of steel ring for an appreciable period of time; the sound of bells made of aluminum (there have been a few) dies far more rapidly.
#40
Junior Member
The point is that less-dense materials damp vibration more effectively than denser materials. Keeping the topic in the realm of bicycles, bike bells made of steel ring for an appreciable period of time; the sound of bells made of aluminum (there have been a few) dies far more rapidly.
If you can't explain how something works, do you dismiss it or try to figure out how to explain it? I prefer the latter.
#41
Full Member
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.
#42
Full Member
Next time, I'm getting a $150 gas pipe WallyWorld special because clearly it is every bit as comfortable (as defined by vertical compliance of frame only) as my other bicycles of all manner of construction. It sure is a good thing I stopped in here to get all straightened out.
Not only is the title of this thread "Carbon to Ti frame", but the first post concludes with "I know many claims about Ti is great for comfort, others said it is not much different than Aluminium because of close density/Young modulus etc. So although it is very subjective, what is people real life experience between Carbon and Ti?"
Did you, in fact, read any of the thread, or were you just unable to understand any of it?
#43
Full Member
You can, if you so choose, "fundamentally disagree" with science that has been established for decades, if you like -- but that just makes you wrong.
Yes, that is precisely what I have said, too many times to count. And it isn't "in many cases" or "most likely the case", it is always the case, and that has been proven, time and again, decades ago.
#44
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 12,906
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: 4806 Post(s)
Liked 3,932 Times
in
2,557 Posts
Just a data point here. I have a short wheel base, quite stiff (and not especially light, even by small tubed steel standards) early '80s Pro Miyata. Top of the line tubing but not thin or light. (Miyata home brew so I cannot tell you what it is. One of the Miyata company's branches is a serious steel mill. Probably a far bigger plant than the bikes.) I run a 25c tubular at 98 psi in front and a 23c at 110 in back. (On wonderful, compliant, totally old-school Mavic GP4 rims.) Short wheelbase and an upright geometry, vertically stiff frame.
I feel everything on the road. It has no damping. (The main tubes ring like clear, high quality bells only with simpler sounds. And I find the ride wonderful. (On pavement, not deep gravel but that's the skinny tires.) I rode the week long Cycle Oregon on it in September and loved it. I am quite certain that a bike of the same geometry but "dead" steel tubes would have made for a far less enjoyable week.
I feel everything on the road. It has no damping. (The main tubes ring like clear, high quality bells only with simpler sounds. And I find the ride wonderful. (On pavement, not deep gravel but that's the skinny tires.) I rode the week long Cycle Oregon on it in September and loved it. I am quite certain that a bike of the same geometry but "dead" steel tubes would have made for a far less enjoyable week.
#45
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 749
Bikes: Dahon Jetstream p8 (sold), customized Dahon Helios x10, customzed Dahon Smooth Hound x11,customized Dahon Hammerhead 8.0 d7, Planet X Free Ranger (mullet setup 1x11), Planet X Giovanissimi 20 (1x9), Frog 52 (1x9) and Frog 48 1s
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 270 Post(s)
Liked 241 Times
in
177 Posts
For example saying a seatpost with bend before a frame is simply not true; if the seatpost is fully down because small rider, it won 't flex since the flex is the reaction to a load applied to a beam of a given shape, dimension and material properties.... So Yes, if it most likely to to flex or to be more accurate, it will flex when protruding but will not when fully down...
#46
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 749
Bikes: Dahon Jetstream p8 (sold), customized Dahon Helios x10, customzed Dahon Smooth Hound x11,customized Dahon Hammerhead 8.0 d7, Planet X Free Ranger (mullet setup 1x11), Planet X Giovanissimi 20 (1x9), Frog 52 (1x9) and Frog 48 1s
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 270 Post(s)
Liked 241 Times
in
177 Posts
Not only is the title of this thread "Carbon to Ti frame", but the first post concludes with "I know many claims about Ti is great for comfort, others said it is not much different than Aluminium because of close density/Young modulus etc. So although it is very subjective, what is people real life experience between Carbon and Ti?"
Did you, in fact, read any of the thread, or were you just unable to understand any of it?
Did you, in fact, read any of the thread, or were you just unable to understand any of it?
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 ..
#47
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 5,380
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2487 Post(s)
Liked 2,956 Times
in
1,679 Posts
If anyone participating in this thread can provide any rebuttal beyond "Eppur si muove"---that is, can provide quantitative evidence that double-diamond metal bicycle frames (a) differ in vertical shock absorption between materials and (b) flex enough for that flex to be perceptible despite being swamped by, e.g., tire flex---please do so.
Passionate assertions and flowery descriptions of someone's bike with a magical ride are fun to read, but they're up against test results that have consistently shown that double-diamond metal bike frames are effectively perfectly rigid in the vertical plane. Those of you who "believe" otherwise, let's see the test results. Numbers, please. (That includes the speculations concerning interacting "vibrations" somehow affecting ride comfort---let's see the measured numbers.)
Likes For Trakhak:
#48
Full Member
There is no subjectivity to the question, either, it is a simple matter of physical properties -- a double-triangle frame will not deflect vertically before:
* your tires collapse onto the wheels and probably debead
* your seatpost deflects
* your saddle rails deflect
* your handlebar deflects
* your fork deflects
* your wheel deflects, probably to the point of permanent deformation
* all of the above ( not necessarily in that order )
Statements which I have repeated here numerous times. If you are unable or unwilling to understand those words, that is increasingly not my problem.
#49
Full Member
I answered that question. You didn't get the answer that you wanted, and are now being petulant, as a result.
If you want to waste money trying to buy a comfortable frame, knock yourself out, it's your money. It won't work, but that's clearly not what you want to hear, so do whatever the hell you want.
#50
Full Member
You misunderstand the word "data". Your belief in an untested hypothesis is not any sort of data.
Literally all of the data that we possess tells us that your belief is unfounded, and that if you desire more comfort from that rig, you need to figure out how to stop running triple-digit tire pressures like it's 1970.
By the way, those rims are probably not as "compliant" as you think, since every study reveals wheels to be quite stiff vertically -- which is no surprise to anyone who understands how a spoked wheel works, or how much aluminum generally doesn't tolerate bending.
Literally all of the data that we possess tells us that your belief is unfounded, and that if you desire more comfort from that rig, you need to figure out how to stop running triple-digit tire pressures like it's 1970.
By the way, those rims are probably not as "compliant" as you think, since every study reveals wheels to be quite stiff vertically -- which is no surprise to anyone who understands how a spoked wheel works, or how much aluminum generally doesn't tolerate bending.
Likes For TC1: