Stiffness Does Not Matter
#126
serious cyclist
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Austin
Posts: 21,147
Bikes: S1, R2, P2
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9334 Post(s)
Liked 3,679 Times
in
2,026 Posts
No, it just means the energy is absorbed over a smaller distance, but it’s the same amount of energy. The stiffness affects the degree of deflection, but not the force input to cause that deflection.
#127
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 786
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 338 Post(s)
Liked 408 Times
in
252 Posts
Hypothetically, you could measure power at the pedals and power at the rear wheel.
If the same power meters, cranks, rear wheel c,hain and derailleur are used, and the same BB is used, the difference should be the same if the bikes are equally efficient regardless of stiffness.
The only confounding factor which would have to be controlled would be the BB shell tolerances and alignment.
If the same power meters, cranks, rear wheel c,hain and derailleur are used, and the same BB is used, the difference should be the same if the bikes are equally efficient regardless of stiffness.
The only confounding factor which would have to be controlled would be the BB shell tolerances and alignment.
#128
Tragically Ignorant
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 15,613
Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Giant OCR A1; SOMA Double Cross Disc; 2022 Allez Elite mit der SRAM
Mentioned: 62 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8186 Post(s)
Liked 9,094 Times
in
5,053 Posts
It's the same amount of energy being exerted on it, but I don't think that means the same amount of energy is stored. If I exert 5w with my foot against a brick wall, the brick wall doesn't deflect at all. By your logic, that means the 5w is being stored in an infinitely small amount of space.on the wall. What I think is actually happening is the 5w is being dissipated into reshaping my foot.
Isn't resistance by definition the opposition of the flow of energy? If the stiffer bike is more resistant, then it is actually less energy that is being transferred to it.
Last edited by livedarklions; 08-25-21 at 09:24 AM.
Likes For livedarklions:
#129
serious cyclist
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Austin
Posts: 21,147
Bikes: S1, R2, P2
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9334 Post(s)
Liked 3,679 Times
in
2,026 Posts
It's the same amount of energy being exerted on it, but I don't think that means the same amount of energy is stored. If I exert 5w with my foot against a brick wall, the brick wall doesn't deflect at all. By your logic, that means the 5w is being stored in an infinitely small amount of space.on the wall. What I think is actually happening is the 5w is being dissipated into reshaping my foot.
Isn't resistance by definition the opposition of the flow of energy? If the stiffer bike is more resistant, then it is actually less energy that is being transferred to it.
Isn't resistance by definition the opposition of the flow of energy? If the stiffer bike is more resistant, then it is actually less energy that is being transferred to it.
And even in your brick wall example, the force is reshaping your foot. It’s not magically pushing 90° down the wall. On a magical infinitely stiff bike, the lateral force is mashing rider A’s foot in the shoe, not pulling the chain.
And with that I’m done on the topic.
#130
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,879
Bikes: Colnago, Van Dessel, Factor, Cervelo, Ritchey
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3906 Post(s)
Liked 7,182 Times
in
2,905 Posts
1. The displacement of a spring is proportional to the force applied to the spring. The potential energy stored in the spring scales with the square of the displacement, and therefore the square of the force. A soft spring will therefore store more potential energy than a stiff spring when an equal force is applied.
2. All real springs are damped, so some energy is lost when a spring is compressed and then allowed to relax. Given two springs, one stiff and one soft, with equal losses, the soft spring will lose more energy than the stiff spring when subject to the same forces.
2. All real springs are damped, so some energy is lost when a spring is compressed and then allowed to relax. Given two springs, one stiff and one soft, with equal losses, the soft spring will lose more energy than the stiff spring when subject to the same forces.
#131
Advanced Slacker
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 6,187
Bikes: Soma Fog Cutter, Surly Wednesday, Canfielld Tilt
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2749 Post(s)
Liked 2,516 Times
in
1,422 Posts
The amount of energy a spring absorbs and stores is a function of the force applied to it over the distance that it compresses. That is also the amount of energy that the spring releases.
So the more flexible frame does absorb more energy when it bends, but it also releases that same amount of energy when it straightens out again.
The underlying debate about whether stiffness effects efficiency has to do with whether the released energy of the spring (the bike frame) is
a) significant enough to worry about
and
b) going into driving the bike forwards or being used up in some other (less useful) way.
EDIT: the post above mine (Tomato Coupe) details this very well. Also, the part about real springs having some damping is true and worth noting, though I think in the case of a steel spring (steel bike frame) this is probably negligible for the current discussion.
Last edited by Kapusta; 08-25-21 at 10:30 AM.
Likes For Kapusta:
#132
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,879
Bikes: Colnago, Van Dessel, Factor, Cervelo, Ritchey
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3906 Post(s)
Liked 7,182 Times
in
2,905 Posts
It's the same amount of energy being exerted on it, but I don't think that means the same amount of energy is stored. If I exert 5w with my foot against a brick wall, the brick wall doesn't deflect at all. By your logic, that means the 5w is being stored in an infinitely small amount of space.on the wall. What I think is actually happening is the 5w is being dissipated into reshaping my foot.
Isn't resistance by definition the opposition of the flow of energy? If the stiffer bike is more resistant, then it is actually less energy that is being transferred to it.
Isn't resistance by definition the opposition of the flow of energy? If the stiffer bike is more resistant, then it is actually less energy that is being transferred to it.
Likes For tomato coupe:
#133
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,879
Bikes: Colnago, Van Dessel, Factor, Cervelo, Ritchey
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3906 Post(s)
Liked 7,182 Times
in
2,905 Posts
* Sorry, no offense intended.
#134
Habitual User
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Altadena, CA
Posts: 7,801
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: 4839 Post(s)
Liked 7,830 Times
in
3,710 Posts
#135
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 1,944
Bikes: 1996 Trek 970 ZX Single Track 2x11
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 610 Post(s)
Liked 558 Times
in
423 Posts
The amount of energy a spring absorbs and stores is a function of the force applied to it over the distance that it compresses. That is also the amount of energy that the spring releases.
So the more flexible frame does absorb more energy when it bends, but it also releases that same amount of energy when it straightens out again.
So the more flexible frame does absorb more energy when it bends, but it also releases that same amount of energy when it straightens out again.
Likes For Clyde1820:
#136
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: TC, MN
Posts: 39,505
Bikes: R3 Disc, Haanjo
Mentioned: 353 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20791 Post(s)
Liked 9,436 Times
in
4,663 Posts
#137
Senior Member
Take rider A on bikes X and Y. Rider A always has an identical pedaling style, and puts 5w laterally into the BB. Bike X deflects 4mm at the BB under rider A's 5w lateral. Bike Y is stiffer and deflects 2mm at the BB under rider A's 5w lateral. Bike Y deflects less, but still absorbs 5w laterally.
#138
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Mission Viejo
Posts: 5,772
Bikes: 1986 Cannondale SR400 (Flat bar commuter), 1988 Cannondale Criterium XTR, 1992 Serotta T-Max, 1995 Trek 970
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1935 Post(s)
Liked 2,150 Times
in
1,313 Posts
#139
Habitual User
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Altadena, CA
Posts: 7,801
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: 4839 Post(s)
Liked 7,830 Times
in
3,710 Posts
#140
Advanced Slacker
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 6,187
Bikes: Soma Fog Cutter, Surly Wednesday, Canfielld Tilt
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2749 Post(s)
Liked 2,516 Times
in
1,422 Posts
The implication being that when a frame flexes such that a rider's full energy is split between forward motion and downward flex, that upon un-flexing the frame returns that energy directly into forward motion. I suspect a spring could achieve this, aside from heat loss, as it's force is in-line with both compression and return. But a frame's flex would have to be spot-on equivalent and in-line, and occur at a time when the rider could actually use it, for the return, in order to recover that energy in the form of the forward motion that was previously lost. Wouldn't it?
As far as the timing, that would be part of the question I pose at the end of my post (the part that you did not quote).
#141
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,879
Bikes: Colnago, Van Dessel, Factor, Cervelo, Ritchey
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3906 Post(s)
Liked 7,182 Times
in
2,905 Posts
The implication being that when a frame flexes such that a rider's full energy is split between forward motion and downward flex, that upon un-flexing the frame returns that energy directly into forward motion. I suspect a spring could achieve this, aside from heat loss, as it's force is in-line with both compression and return. But a frame's flex would have to be spot-on equivalent and in-line, and occur at a time when the rider could actually use it, for the return, in order to recover that energy in the form of the forward motion that was previously lost. Wouldn't it?
Likes For tomato coupe:
#142
Junior Member
Join Date: Aug 2021
Posts: 12
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
Well, since the entire lightweight bicycle doesn't weigh very much then why not suspend the rider on the frame instead of suspending the rider and frame on the wheels ? In the first case the entire bicycle would be un-sprung weight while in the second case only the wheels and suspension would be un-sprung weight. But again the bicycle doesn't weigh very much against the total weight of bicycle and rider.
The problems would seem to be that a seat suspension would hinder pedaling while sitting in the seat. But then if there were only a handlebar suspension that would tend to pitch the rider's weight forward. If there were both a seat suspension and a handlebar suspension the rider would move more vertically. Of course there is a Specialized 20mm handlebar springing and dampening.
Now one bicycle developer has a seat compliance system that moves the seat mostly front and rear and not as much up and down. I suppose that the development has our attention. Well, it's the Cannondale Kingpin system that should be considered. They call it a suspension while I call it a seat-compliance-system. But another system is the Trek rear IsoSpeed. Then the Trek front IsoSpeed is a front-to-rear movement of the handlebars !
My solution is a stiff frame with a deflecting fork and deflecting seat post. Of course my sport is not long-range rides but short downhill courses like a paved sports-car track but relative to the 40 MPH speed of the bicycle.
Or maybe we should test the Cannondale Kingpin rear system with the Specialized Future Shock front system ?
Now we all know that a wheel suspension at the rear of a bicycle does reduce pedaling effectiveness.
The problems would seem to be that a seat suspension would hinder pedaling while sitting in the seat. But then if there were only a handlebar suspension that would tend to pitch the rider's weight forward. If there were both a seat suspension and a handlebar suspension the rider would move more vertically. Of course there is a Specialized 20mm handlebar springing and dampening.
Now one bicycle developer has a seat compliance system that moves the seat mostly front and rear and not as much up and down. I suppose that the development has our attention. Well, it's the Cannondale Kingpin system that should be considered. They call it a suspension while I call it a seat-compliance-system. But another system is the Trek rear IsoSpeed. Then the Trek front IsoSpeed is a front-to-rear movement of the handlebars !
My solution is a stiff frame with a deflecting fork and deflecting seat post. Of course my sport is not long-range rides but short downhill courses like a paved sports-car track but relative to the 40 MPH speed of the bicycle.
Or maybe we should test the Cannondale Kingpin rear system with the Specialized Future Shock front system ?
Now we all know that a wheel suspension at the rear of a bicycle does reduce pedaling effectiveness.
Last edited by KKBHH; 08-26-21 at 02:37 PM.
#143
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 15,453
Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2017 Workswell 093, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE
Mentioned: 144 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7628 Post(s)
Liked 3,453 Times
in
1,823 Posts
Seems simple enough to me .... the motion of the crank translates the motion of the foot into motion of the chain and ultimately, the rear wheel, which propels the bike forward. Anything in the system which transfers energy anywhere not alo0ng the perfect (circular) path of the crank, wastes propulsive energy.
Think about a bike with really loose bottom bracket bearings, or cranks which weren't tight to the spindle---no one would be trying to convince anyone else that those things in some way returned energy to the bike because "ya know, conservation of energy." If the whole frame flexes at the bottom bracket, same effect---some of the potential propulsive energy goes in different directions. When the frames snaps back (or is pushed back by the other crank) it is still lateral, not longitudinal motion, and this does Not help propel the bike.
it's going Sideways, people. Unless you want your bike to go sideways , any sideways motion is wasted, since "wasted" in this case means "not propelling the bike forward."
The only way the bike could be acting as a spring and propelling itself forward with energy from deflection would be if the bottom bracket twisted longitudinally under load---but that would imply a fixed or high-friction crank bearing.
Think about it .... if your wheel shakes from side to side really badly, are you going to claim that its okay, because the energy lost will be returned and help propel the bike forward.?
For maximum efficiency, everything has to stay in the plane in which it is meant to operate. Every angular flax is a waste of energy. Y'all are engineers with degrees and all that ....
Ask the race-car engineer: Is frame flax a good thing? Does it make the car go faster? No ... eventually it breaks drivetrains because all those drivetrain parts are designed to work in very specific relative orientations. The forces involved with automobile engines are so large that transmissions will explode, gears will strip, cranks will snap .... the forces involved with cycling are so puny that realy almost nothing happens ... which I think was the OP's point, he just said it badly.
Think about a bike with really loose bottom bracket bearings, or cranks which weren't tight to the spindle---no one would be trying to convince anyone else that those things in some way returned energy to the bike because "ya know, conservation of energy." If the whole frame flexes at the bottom bracket, same effect---some of the potential propulsive energy goes in different directions. When the frames snaps back (or is pushed back by the other crank) it is still lateral, not longitudinal motion, and this does Not help propel the bike.
it's going Sideways, people. Unless you want your bike to go sideways , any sideways motion is wasted, since "wasted" in this case means "not propelling the bike forward."
The only way the bike could be acting as a spring and propelling itself forward with energy from deflection would be if the bottom bracket twisted longitudinally under load---but that would imply a fixed or high-friction crank bearing.
Think about it .... if your wheel shakes from side to side really badly, are you going to claim that its okay, because the energy lost will be returned and help propel the bike forward.?
For maximum efficiency, everything has to stay in the plane in which it is meant to operate. Every angular flax is a waste of energy. Y'all are engineers with degrees and all that ....
Ask the race-car engineer: Is frame flax a good thing? Does it make the car go faster? No ... eventually it breaks drivetrains because all those drivetrain parts are designed to work in very specific relative orientations. The forces involved with automobile engines are so large that transmissions will explode, gears will strip, cranks will snap .... the forces involved with cycling are so puny that realy almost nothing happens ... which I think was the OP's point, he just said it badly.
Likes For phughes:
#146
Tragically Ignorant
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 15,613
Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Giant OCR A1; SOMA Double Cross Disc; 2022 Allez Elite mit der SRAM
Mentioned: 62 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8186 Post(s)
Liked 9,094 Times
in
5,053 Posts
#147
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Mission Viejo
Posts: 5,772
Bikes: 1986 Cannondale SR400 (Flat bar commuter), 1988 Cannondale Criterium XTR, 1992 Serotta T-Max, 1995 Trek 970
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1935 Post(s)
Liked 2,150 Times
in
1,313 Posts
Likes For 70sSanO:
#148
Tragically Ignorant
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 15,613
Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Giant OCR A1; SOMA Double Cross Disc; 2022 Allez Elite mit der SRAM
Mentioned: 62 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8186 Post(s)
Liked 9,094 Times
in
5,053 Posts
Seems simple enough to me .... the motion of the crank translates the motion of the foot into motion of the chain and ultimately, the rear wheel, which propels the bike forward. Anything in the system which transfers energy anywhere not alo0ng the perfect (circular) path of the crank, wastes propulsive energy.
Think about a bike with really loose bottom bracket bearings, or cranks which weren't tight to the spindle---no one would be trying to convince anyone else that those things in some way returned energy to the bike because "ya know, conservation of energy." If the whole frame flexes at the bottom bracket, same effect---some of the potential propulsive energy goes in different directions. When the frames snaps back (or is pushed back by the other crank) it is still lateral, not longitudinal motion, and this does Not help propel the bike.
it's going Sideways, people. Unless you want your bike to go sideways , any sideways motion is wasted, since "wasted" in this case means "not propelling the bike forward."
The only way the bike could be acting as a spring and propelling itself forward with energy from deflection would be if the bottom bracket twisted longitudinally under load---but that would imply a fixed or high-friction crank bearing.
Think about it .... if your wheel shakes from side to side really badly, are you going to claim that its okay, because the energy lost will be returned and help propel the bike forward.?
For maximum efficiency, everything has to stay in the plane in which it is meant to operate. Every angular flax is a waste of energy. Y'all are engineers with degrees and all that ....
Ask the race-car engineer: Is frame flax a good thing? Does it make the car go faster? No ... eventually it breaks drivetrains because all those drivetrain parts are designed to work in very specific relative orientations. The forces involved with automobile engines are so large that transmissions will explode, gears will strip, cranks will snap .... the forces involved with cycling are so puny that realy almost nothing happens ... which I think was the OP's point, he just said it badly.
Think about a bike with really loose bottom bracket bearings, or cranks which weren't tight to the spindle---no one would be trying to convince anyone else that those things in some way returned energy to the bike because "ya know, conservation of energy." If the whole frame flexes at the bottom bracket, same effect---some of the potential propulsive energy goes in different directions. When the frames snaps back (or is pushed back by the other crank) it is still lateral, not longitudinal motion, and this does Not help propel the bike.
it's going Sideways, people. Unless you want your bike to go sideways , any sideways motion is wasted, since "wasted" in this case means "not propelling the bike forward."
The only way the bike could be acting as a spring and propelling itself forward with energy from deflection would be if the bottom bracket twisted longitudinally under load---but that would imply a fixed or high-friction crank bearing.
Think about it .... if your wheel shakes from side to side really badly, are you going to claim that its okay, because the energy lost will be returned and help propel the bike forward.?
For maximum efficiency, everything has to stay in the plane in which it is meant to operate. Every angular flax is a waste of energy. Y'all are engineers with degrees and all that ....
Ask the race-car engineer: Is frame flax a good thing? Does it make the car go faster? No ... eventually it breaks drivetrains because all those drivetrain parts are designed to work in very specific relative orientations. The forces involved with automobile engines are so large that transmissions will explode, gears will strip, cranks will snap .... the forces involved with cycling are so puny that realy almost nothing happens ... which I think was the OP's point, he just said it badly.
I'm so confused by this issue and all the conflicting opinions on it (which generally all have to be better informed than mine) that I've decided that the best approach is to ask the bikes. They're not talking.
#149
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: TC, MN
Posts: 39,505
Bikes: R3 Disc, Haanjo
Mentioned: 353 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20791 Post(s)
Liked 9,436 Times
in
4,663 Posts
#150
Tragically Ignorant
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 15,613
Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Giant OCR A1; SOMA Double Cross Disc; 2022 Allez Elite mit der SRAM
Mentioned: 62 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8186 Post(s)
Liked 9,094 Times
in
5,053 Posts
I'm hearing them, it's just not talking.
And I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would pay money for those buzzy hubs. Talk about things I wish I couldn't hear!