Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > General Cycling Discussion
Reload this Page >

Stiffness Does Not Matter

Notices
General Cycling Discussion Have a cycling related question or comment that doesn't fit in one of the other specialty forums? Drop on in and post in here! When possible, please select the forum above that most fits your post!

Stiffness Does Not Matter

Old 08-25-21, 09:07 AM
  #126  
Bah Humbug
serious cyclist
 
Bah Humbug's Avatar
 
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
Originally Posted by livedarklions
I'm not sure your last paragraph about planing follows--as you note, the stiffer frame is more resistant to the 5w. Doesn't this translate to less energy stored and returned?
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.
Bah Humbug is offline  
Old 08-25-21, 09:07 AM
  #127  
Branko D
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.
Branko D is offline  
Old 08-25-21, 09:20 AM
  #128  
livedarklions
Tragically Ignorant
 
livedarklions's Avatar
 
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
Originally Posted by Bah Humbug
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.

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.
livedarklions is offline  
Likes For livedarklions:
Old 08-25-21, 09:51 AM
  #129  
Bah Humbug
serious cyclist
 
Bah Humbug's Avatar
 
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
Originally Posted by livedarklions
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.
We’re not talking about an infinitely stiff bike, however. There is still deflection, just less. And even so, physics sez force vectors must be balanced.

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.
Bah Humbug is offline  
Old 08-25-21, 10:18 AM
  #130  
tomato coupe
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.
tomato coupe is offline  
Old 08-25-21, 10:21 AM
  #131  
Kapusta
Advanced Slacker
 
Kapusta's Avatar
 
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
Originally Posted by Bah Humbug
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.
No, it is NOT the same amount of energy. I think you may be confusing force and energy. Just because it takes the same force does not mean it takes the same energy.

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.
Kapusta is offline  
Likes For Kapusta:
Old 08-25-21, 10:23 AM
  #132  
tomato coupe
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
Originally Posted by livedarklions
I'm not sure your last paragraph about planing follows--as you note, the stiffer frame is more resistant to the 5w. Doesn't this translate to less energy stored and returned?
Originally Posted by livedarklions
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.
One does not apply energy to a pedal or a brick wall, one applies a force.
tomato coupe is offline  
Likes For tomato coupe:
Old 08-25-21, 10:38 AM
  #133  
tomato coupe
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
Originally Posted by Kapusta
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.
The problem is that you can't just think of the frame by itself, you have to look at the bike + rider system. When you add a soft doughy* rider to a bike, you introduce new avenues for energy loss.

* Sorry, no offense intended.
tomato coupe is offline  
Old 08-25-21, 11:05 AM
  #134  
Eric F 
Habitual User
 
Eric F's Avatar
 
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
Originally Posted by tomato coupe
...a soft doughy rider....
Here.
__________________
"Swedish fish. They're protein shaped." - livedarklions
Eric F is offline  
Likes For Eric F:
Old 08-25-21, 11:19 AM
  #135  
Clyde1820
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
Originally Posted by Kapusta
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 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?
Clyde1820 is offline  
Likes For Clyde1820:
Old 08-25-21, 11:31 AM
  #136  
WhyFi
Senior Member
 
WhyFi's Avatar
 
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
Originally Posted by ShannonM
Stop caring about the stiffness of your frame, cranks, wheels, stem, handlebar, pedals...
No.
WhyFi is offline  
Likes For WhyFi:
Old 08-25-21, 11:36 AM
  #137  
HTupolev
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Seattle
Posts: 4,261
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1971 Post(s)
Liked 1,297 Times in 629 Posts
Originally Posted by Bah Humbug
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.
No. For the same applied forces, a stiffer spring in the middle of a power train tends to absorb less energy than a flexier spring. This is because work is force integrated over distance, and a flexier spring deflects farther for a given force.
HTupolev is online now  
Old 08-25-21, 11:36 AM
  #138  
70sSanO
Senior Member
 
70sSanO's Avatar
 
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
Originally Posted by 63rickert
The Eddy Merckx hour record...
Originally Posted by tomato coupe
When you add a soft doughy* rider to a bike...
Just trying to surmise this thread is a visual...



John
70sSanO is offline  
Likes For 70sSanO:
Old 08-25-21, 11:44 AM
  #139  
Eric F 
Habitual User
 
Eric F's Avatar
 
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
Originally Posted by 70sSanO
Just trying to surmise this thread is a visual...



John
Nailed it.
__________________
"Swedish fish. They're protein shaped." - livedarklions
Eric F is offline  
Old 08-25-21, 11:46 AM
  #140  
Kapusta
Advanced Slacker
 
Kapusta's Avatar
 
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
Originally Posted by Clyde1820
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?
I am unclear what you mean by "in line". But whatever vectors are relevant to the forces that the spring releases would be the same involved when it is compressed. I think that is a bit of a red herring, here.

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).
Kapusta is offline  
Old 08-25-21, 11:50 AM
  #141  
tomato coupe
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
Originally Posted by Clyde1820
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?
Yep, that's the whole issue. The energy that goes into flexing the frame has to be returned at the right time and in a way that generates forward motion. Unfortunately, the mechanism by which that returned energy can generate forward motion involves the riders legs, and this introduces losses to the system. (Legs make terrible springs.)
tomato coupe is offline  
Likes For tomato coupe:
Old 08-25-21, 12:09 PM
  #142  
KKBHH
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.

Last edited by KKBHH; 08-26-21 at 02:37 PM.
KKBHH is offline  
Old 08-25-21, 12:29 PM
  #143  
Maelochs
Senior Member
 
Maelochs's Avatar
 
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.
Maelochs is offline  
Old 08-25-21, 12:45 PM
  #144  
phughes
Senior Member
 
phughes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,064
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1019 Post(s)
Liked 1,249 Times in 722 Posts
The answer is to buy lighter weight bottle cages, to compensate.
phughes is offline  
Likes For phughes:
Old 08-25-21, 12:46 PM
  #145  
phughes
Senior Member
 
phughes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,064
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1019 Post(s)
Liked 1,249 Times in 722 Posts
Oh, and wax you chain, shave your legs, and run disc brakes.
phughes is offline  
Old 08-25-21, 01:43 PM
  #146  
livedarklions
Tragically Ignorant
 
livedarklions's Avatar
 
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
Originally Posted by tomato coupe
One does not apply energy to a pedal or a brick wall, one applies a force.

Dammit, Jim, I'm a lawyer, not a physicist!
livedarklions is offline  
Likes For livedarklions:
Old 08-25-21, 01:50 PM
  #147  
70sSanO
Senior Member
 
70sSanO's Avatar
 
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
Originally Posted by livedarklions
Dammit, Jim, I'm a lawyer, not a physicist!
I have a bone to pick with you.

John
70sSanO is offline  
Likes For 70sSanO:
Old 08-25-21, 02:14 PM
  #148  
livedarklions
Tragically Ignorant
 
livedarklions's Avatar
 
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
Originally Posted by Maelochs
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.

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.
livedarklions is offline  
Likes For livedarklions:
Old 08-25-21, 02:22 PM
  #149  
WhyFi
Senior Member
 
WhyFi's Avatar
 
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
Originally Posted by livedarklions
They're not talking.
Look man, you can listen to the bikes but you can't hear them. There's a difference man. Just because you're listening to them doesn't mean you're hearing them.
WhyFi is offline  
Likes For WhyFi:
Old 08-25-21, 02:50 PM
  #150  
livedarklions
Tragically Ignorant
 
livedarklions's Avatar
 
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
Originally Posted by WhyFi
Look man, you can listen to the bikes but you can't hear them. There's a difference man. Just because you're listening to them doesn't mean you're hearing them.

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!
livedarklions is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.