Stiffness Does Not Matter
#101
Randomhead
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Happy Valley, Pennsylvania
Posts: 24,364
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked 3,664 Times
in
2,497 Posts
An hour record really isn't a great example of something that calls for stiffness. Aero is all. Of course, aero was somewhat of a fringe concept when Merckx did his ride.
As long as the chain stays on at first, it really doesn't matter how stiff/not stiff those bikes are. I always thought it was funny that Merckx' bike was lightened to an incredible degree for the time. Just not that important once it gets up on plane. Which is after the first 15 seconds.
As long as the chain stays on at first, it really doesn't matter how stiff/not stiff those bikes are. I always thought it was funny that Merckx' bike was lightened to an incredible degree for the time. Just not that important once it gets up on plane. Which is after the first 15 seconds.
Likes For unterhausen:
#102
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
#103
Senior Member
Widely reported at the time to be Reynolds. The lightweight set that had been around for already a long time then. Reported as everything since then. Pino Morroni told me what the frame was and I will believe him.
No one here seems to have the faintest idea what is involved in riding a bike on a track.
Boardman record was controversial to say to say the least. I honestly did not know about the other ride. And thanked the man who told me.
#104
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
Likes For Eric F:
#105
Senior Member
It's hard to know Merckx's aerodynamic and tire drag with confidence, but my back-of-the-napkin guess for his power is similar to GhostRider62's.
Likes For HTupolev:
#106
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2021
Posts: 4,083
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2332 Post(s)
Liked 2,094 Times
in
1,311 Posts
400 watts? Record would have been reset many many times. By most anyone.
Widely reported at the time to be Reynolds. The lightweight set that had been around for already a long time then. Reported as everything since then. Pino Morroni told me what the frame was and I will believe him.
No one here seems to have the faintest idea what is involved in riding a bike on a track.
Boardman record was controversial to say to say the least. I honestly did not know about the other ride. And thanked the man who told me.
Widely reported at the time to be Reynolds. The lightweight set that had been around for already a long time then. Reported as everything since then. Pino Morroni told me what the frame was and I will believe him.
No one here seems to have the faintest idea what is involved in riding a bike on a track.
Boardman record was controversial to say to say the least. I honestly did not know about the other ride. And thanked the man who told me.
Your example is completely not relevant anyway. During a steady state effort at high cadence as you can see from the video of attempt in Mexico, the actual force on the pedals is quite low. There is even some slow motion video of him.
Likes For GhostRider62:
#107
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2021
Posts: 4,083
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2332 Post(s)
Liked 2,094 Times
in
1,311 Posts
#108
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
Likes For Eric F:
#109
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
Likes For tomato coupe:
#110
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 39,059
Mentioned: 210 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18320 Post(s)
Liked 15,299 Times
in
7,231 Posts
Likes For indyfabz:
#111
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
I agree with this. IME of race car engineering a lot of drivers have a tendency to set up their cars way too stiff based on subjective “feel”. Often going softer on springs, anti-roll-bars and damping improves both traction and lateral grip. Drivers are often surprised by the stopwatch vs perception. Especially in low-downforce formula like Touring Cars where aero performance is much less critical.
Also, faster load transfer works the tires harder and therefor the setup for a low-traction surface is a softer suspension.
The other subject was "Turn left". Well, turn-left is okay but steering is really a leveraging of the tire against the track. Then the contact-patch deflects out-of-line from the tire. As long as the contact-patch can further deflect then there is traction. The path of the vehicle is the result of the leveraging of the tires against the track but since both the front tires and the rear tires have contact-patch deflection then there is tire drift at both the front and rear such that there is not much apparent steering angle at the front wheels. The contact-patch deflection is called "slip angle" but really should be called drift-angle. Oh, on a four-wheel vehicle it's the outside tires with load on them that have significant slip-angle and drift in a curve. Note that the driver or rider doesn't steer through a curve under g-forces but just experiences the natural path of the vehicle due to the leveraging of tire force !
Now, for instance, the sport of "drifting" is really a sport of power-sliding because the rear tires are overloaded and can no longer further deflect the contact-patch. That's a slide.
Last edited by KKBHH; 08-24-21 at 04:38 PM.
#112
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 8,175
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4274 Post(s)
Liked 4,713 Times
in
2,911 Posts
A stiffer suspension is faster weight transfer, actually called load transfer since, like a go-kart, it's not very much due to body roll. And then faster load transfer is more traction on the turn-in. The problem is, how fast of a responding vehicle can the driver or rider handle ?
Also, faster load transfer works the tires harder and therefor the setup for a low-traction surface is a softer suspension.
Also, faster load transfer works the tires harder and therefor the setup for a low-traction surface is a softer suspension.
#113
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, as long as the tire can increase slip-angle under increasing load then that is a gain in traction even though it is also increasing drift. See, if the tire takes a larger load without sliding then that is more traction demonstrated. This fundamental relates to either increasing speed and g-force in a curve or to a re-balancing of front-to-rear load transfer.
Now very stiff tires can take very large loads and that's how it's done. But a stiffer suspension is not an increase in load-transfer but just faster load-transfer. And that's why an increase in load-transfer is more traction on the turn-in. The balance of the front-to-rear load-transfer can be changed and the speed of the load-transfer can be changed but not the total load-transfer. Well, I mean that the total peak load-transfer is not changed with suspension stiffness. It can be changed with vehicle height or with vehicle track-width.
To relate all this back to bicycles, it could be said that many bicycles, like go-karts, just use tires and frame or fork deflection for a suspension.
Now very stiff tires can take very large loads and that's how it's done. But a stiffer suspension is not an increase in load-transfer but just faster load-transfer. And that's why an increase in load-transfer is more traction on the turn-in. The balance of the front-to-rear load-transfer can be changed and the speed of the load-transfer can be changed but not the total load-transfer. Well, I mean that the total peak load-transfer is not changed with suspension stiffness. It can be changed with vehicle height or with vehicle track-width.
To relate all this back to bicycles, it could be said that many bicycles, like go-karts, just use tires and frame or fork deflection for a suspension.
Last edited by KKBHH; 08-24-21 at 05:28 PM.
#114
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
I wonder what chain lube they used to break the record?
Probably wet for less friction.
John
Probably wet for less friction.
John
#115
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
Except, of course, that flexibility on a track and in steady-state riding (even at massive power output) is nothing at all like road riding---smooth track, smooth pedalling, minimal longitudinal acceleration ...... nothing like sprinting, or climbing at max power ..... so your data input is a meaningless as anyone else's.
So far this whole thread is basically, "Yes, because I said so .... No, because I said so" repeated continually.
By the way ... maybe if he had been riding a modern Merckx bike that hour record would be significantly faster.
So far this whole thread is basically, "Yes, because I said so .... No, because I said so" repeated continually.
By the way ... maybe if he had been riding a modern Merckx bike that hour record would be significantly faster.
Right.
Secondly .... YES, as you chose to overlook most likely because you had no logical refutation and had already blown your illogical refutation above ... there is No Direct Correlation between frame stiffness and frame "performance" in those very different examples. You can choose not to see stuff, but it doesn't go away, sorry.
On top of all that ....
The Eddy Merckx hour record, still unbeaten after 49 years, was done on a Colnago built with Reynolds 22/28 butted tubes. In old style skinny diameter. Converting British wire gauge to metric gives wall thickness of 0.711/0.376mm. Of course Reynolds never produced anything accurate to 0.001mm, that is just how the nominal converts. But the skinny belly of the tube was less than 0.4mm. Every Category 6 rider knows that such a frame is impossibly flexible and noodly. What was good enough for Eddy would be laughed out of current market. When you can put out 750-800 watts continuously for an hour get back to me.
Yeah, I think I won’t take your word as authoritative, eh?
Let’s move on.
#116
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
Yes this is true, but not really the full story. A stiffer suspension will tend to increase dynamic tyre load variation when cornering, braking and accelerating, which in turn loses grip/traction (as tyre load vs grip is non-linear). It's complicated and optimum setup is pretty circuit dependent too. But the basic aim is to run as soft as you can get away with, rather than as stiff as you can, if that makes sense. This is coming from several decades experience of race engineering at the highest pro level (BTCC in the 90s and F1 from 2000-2010).
Having hung around motorsports for a few years, and having listened and maybe learned ..... what he says makes sense ---- sure, the physics can be interpreted a bunch of ways, but what really works on different tracks is what matters.
But .... bicycles.
This is another thread where someone became an expert after reading an article on the internet--and read it almost all the way through---, and was kind enough to enlighten us with the latest "knowledge."
#117
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2021
Posts: 4,083
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2332 Post(s)
Liked 2,094 Times
in
1,311 Posts
Likes For GhostRider62:
#118
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 8,175
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4274 Post(s)
Liked 4,713 Times
in
2,911 Posts
Well, as long as the tire can increase slip-angle under increasing load then that is a gain in traction even though it is also increasing drift. See, if the tire takes a larger load without sliding then that is more traction demonstrated. This fundamental relates to either increasing speed and g-force in a curve or to a re-balancing of front-to-rear load transfer.
Now very stiff tires can take very large loads and that's how it's done. But a stiffer suspension is not an increase in load-transfer but just faster load-transfer. And that's why an increase in load-transfer is more traction on the turn-in. The balance of the front-to-rear load-transfer can be changed and the speed of the load-transfer can be changed but not the total load-transfer. Well, I mean that the total peak load-transfer is not changed with suspension stiffness. It can be changed with vehicle height or with vehicle track-width.
To relate all this back to bicycles, it could be said that many bicycles, like go-karts, just use tires and frame or fork deflection for a suspension.
Now very stiff tires can take very large loads and that's how it's done. But a stiffer suspension is not an increase in load-transfer but just faster load-transfer. And that's why an increase in load-transfer is more traction on the turn-in. The balance of the front-to-rear load-transfer can be changed and the speed of the load-transfer can be changed but not the total load-transfer. Well, I mean that the total peak load-transfer is not changed with suspension stiffness. It can be changed with vehicle height or with vehicle track-width.
To relate all this back to bicycles, it could be said that many bicycles, like go-karts, just use tires and frame or fork deflection for a suspension.
But to be honest this is all pretty irrelevant to bicycle frame flex. I only mentioned this to highlight the potential difference between someone's subjective perception of stiffness and objective performance. They don't always match up. Like in this race car example, a stiffer suspension might well feel like it has a sharper turn-in response, but you might not notice a loss of grip mid-corner or loss of traction on a bumpy exit (especially with TC). That's why we have data and engineers to analyse it to death!
#119
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 5,339
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2429 Post(s)
Liked 2,889 Times
in
1,646 Posts
Full disclosure: Sosenka was popped for PEDs at least twice, although not for his hour record ride. I suspect the UCI thought he was juiced for the hour record, too, but couldn't prove it. There's got to be a reason his record-setting ride is almost universally ignored in the bike racing community.
Likes For Trakhak:
#120
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
Full disclosure: Sosenka was popped for PEDs at least twice, although not for his hour record ride. I suspect the UCI thought he was juiced for the hour record, too, but couldn't prove it. There's got to be a reason his record-setting ride is almost universally ignored in the bike racing community.
Likes For tomato coupe:
#121
Rhapsodic Laviathan
#122
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 8,175
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4274 Post(s)
Liked 4,713 Times
in
2,911 Posts
Likes For PeteHski:
#123
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
You can definitely argue in favour of more vertical frame compliance. In fact many manufacturers already have. That's why we have super thin seat-stays, D-shaped seat posts, IsoSpeed, Futureshock, etc. Wider tyres and lower pressures have arguably made frame compliance much less critical in very recent years, but still I'd rather not have a bone-shaking stiff frame for riding on our pot-holed roads. CF goodness can give you vertical compliance and high lateral stiffness at the same time.
I really like the aesthetics of old bikes, but modern CF road bikes are just awesome all around and great to ride.
#124
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
I know I'm going to regret this, but...
Regardless of how much or whether lateral energy is returned or wasted, how can the measured deflection possibly affect that?
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. In other words, the less deflection of the stiffer bike doesn't mean there's less wasted effort deflecting the bike, just more resistance to the same wasted effort. It would be like saying that a stiffer car suspension makes the road smoother.
Now rider A may prefer the feel of bike Y, of course. Bike Y may be sharper-handling. I don't see how bike Y can be more efficient though.
This of course also means that "planing" (which is the damned stupidest word for the suppose concept) is bunk, because deflecting MORE also doesn't mean anything better either, inherently.
Regardless of how much or whether lateral energy is returned or wasted, how can the measured deflection possibly affect that?
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. In other words, the less deflection of the stiffer bike doesn't mean there's less wasted effort deflecting the bike, just more resistance to the same wasted effort. It would be like saying that a stiffer car suspension makes the road smoother.
Now rider A may prefer the feel of bike Y, of course. Bike Y may be sharper-handling. I don't see how bike Y can be more efficient though.
This of course also means that "planing" (which is the damned stupidest word for the suppose concept) is bunk, because deflecting MORE also doesn't mean anything better either, inherently.
#125
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 know I'm going to regret this, but...
Regardless of how much or whether lateral energy is returned or wasted, how can the measured deflection possibly affect that?
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. In other words, the less deflection of the stiffer bike doesn't mean there's less wasted effort deflecting the bike, just more resistance to the same wasted effort. It would be like saying that a stiffer car suspension makes the road smoother.
Now rider A may prefer the feel of bike Y, of course. Bike Y may be sharper-handling. I don't see how bike Y can be more efficient though.
This of course also means that "planing" (which is the damned stupidest word for the suppose concept) is bunk, because deflecting MORE also doesn't mean anything better either, inherently.
Regardless of how much or whether lateral energy is returned or wasted, how can the measured deflection possibly affect that?
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. In other words, the less deflection of the stiffer bike doesn't mean there's less wasted effort deflecting the bike, just more resistance to the same wasted effort. It would be like saying that a stiffer car suspension makes the road smoother.
Now rider A may prefer the feel of bike Y, of course. Bike Y may be sharper-handling. I don't see how bike Y can be more efficient though.
This of course also means that "planing" (which is the damned stupidest word for the suppose concept) is bunk, because deflecting MORE also doesn't mean anything better either, inherently.