Steel faster than carbon?
10-25-22, 10:20 PM
#26
Full Member
Thread Starter
One thing that would help is multiple controlled repeats of the experiment, to establish some statistical significance to the claimed differences.
But before that, one would really need to have a properly controlled experiment. The biggest single flaw in the google doc is that the tires on the steel bike have vastly better rolling resistance than those on the carbon bike, so how do you know that you are measuring something other than the differences due to the tires?
Essentially, you want to change one thing only: frame material. Ideally, you would want to use the same wheels, tires and drive train. Several different routes, several different riders, etc. would also make things more compelling.
You are trying to test a very specific hypothesis: frame material is the only thing that matters. The rest of the bike should weigh the same, have the same air resistance, road resistance, pedaling resistance, etc. In practice, this is a very difficult thing to achieve.
If you see repeatable differences, it is most compelling to design a series of experiments to try to disprove the idea that the observed differences can be explained away by any other effect.
It is a lot harder, in other words, than what is presented in the google doc or that video.
But before that, one would really need to have a properly controlled experiment. The biggest single flaw in the google doc is that the tires on the steel bike have vastly better rolling resistance than those on the carbon bike, so how do you know that you are measuring something other than the differences due to the tires?
Essentially, you want to change one thing only: frame material. Ideally, you would want to use the same wheels, tires and drive train. Several different routes, several different riders, etc. would also make things more compelling.
You are trying to test a very specific hypothesis: frame material is the only thing that matters. The rest of the bike should weigh the same, have the same air resistance, road resistance, pedaling resistance, etc. In practice, this is a very difficult thing to achieve.
If you see repeatable differences, it is most compelling to design a series of experiments to try to disprove the idea that the observed differences can be explained away by any other effect.
It is a lot harder, in other words, than what is presented in the google doc or that video.
10-25-22, 10:36 PM
#27
ignominious poltroon
Join Date: Jan 2022
Posts: 4,028
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2236 Post(s)
Liked 3,427 Times
in
1,793 Posts
Yeah, if you match weight, aerodynamic properties, Young's modulus, geometry, etc until both are identical, the differences, by definition, will disappear. So you also have to be able to make some sort of objective case for what properties of the steel frame you allow to differ. It becomes a fool's errand.
Likes For Polaris OBark:
10-25-22, 11:21 PM
#28
Friendship is Magic
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 22,984
Bikes: old ones
Mentioned: 304 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26400 Post(s)
Liked 10,373 Times
in
7,202 Posts
Lance would approve.
__________________
Likes For 3alarmer:
10-26-22, 12:14 AM
#29
Sunshine
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Des Moines, IA
Posts: 16,608
Bikes: '18 class built steel roadbike, '19 Fairlight Secan, '88 Schwinn Premis , Black Mountain Cycles Monstercross V4, '89 Novara Trionfo
Mentioned: 123 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10954 Post(s)
Liked 7,481 Times
in
4,184 Posts
Copy and paste into the browser and it works just fine.
For many years I have proposed the "aero" frame is no more than marketing bull for gullible buyers. Without the whole package being complete, the aero frame is simply shaped tubing and ineffective by itself. Yeah, yeah, follow the science. Science is wrong more than it is right.
For many years I have proposed the "aero" frame is no more than marketing bull for gullible buyers. Without the whole package being complete, the aero frame is simply shaped tubing and ineffective by itself. Yeah, yeah, follow the science. Science is wrong more than it is right.
What is 'the whole package'? If one thing is more aerodynamic than another, then it can be an improvement.
More aero clothing? That alone can help.
More aero helmet? That alone can help.
More aero bike? That alone can help.
Just one can improve speed/time. Perhaps the improvement is marginal and/or its instance specific, but it can be an improvement.
Likes For mstateglfr:
10-26-22, 12:16 AM
#30
Sunshine
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Des Moines, IA
Posts: 16,608
Bikes: '18 class built steel roadbike, '19 Fairlight Secan, '88 Schwinn Premis , Black Mountain Cycles Monstercross V4, '89 Novara Trionfo
Mentioned: 123 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10954 Post(s)
Liked 7,481 Times
in
4,184 Posts
I've always wanted to see the results of, say an 18lbs steel racing bike with modern components and rim brakes matched against a 17lbs carbon aero bike with discs. Same for a 10 year old top-of-the-line 16lbs rim brake carbon bike vs the latest disc brake carbon wonder bike. The fact that bike manufacturers are reluctant to conduct these tests caused me to suspect the results wouldn't be to the likings of their profit margins.
The modern bike industry is a scam so far as I'm concerned.
The modern bike industry is a scam so far as I'm concerned.
10-26-22, 12:52 AM
#32
Sunshine
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Des Moines, IA
Posts: 16,608
Bikes: '18 class built steel roadbike, '19 Fairlight Secan, '88 Schwinn Premis , Black Mountain Cycles Monstercross V4, '89 Novara Trionfo
Mentioned: 123 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10954 Post(s)
Liked 7,481 Times
in
4,184 Posts
The SWorks SL7 replaced the Venge and it's $14,000. What does that cost relate to...maybe 0.1% of bikes?
You want to put that against an 18# steel road bike with rim brakes that would cost what...probably $7000 if you went overboard?
Why do this? The SWorks would be lighter and more aero. What would you hope to accomplish with this contest?
10-26-22, 01:26 AM
#33
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
I don't know why he got the results he did.
While the tires are different, they should actually be roughly about equal according to BRR, at 6 bar. Use of oval chainrings with powermeters generally changes the results - typically in the direction of over-reading, though (Assioma states this somewhere, and other people found it on tests). We're talking about relatively small error margins here, however.
Other than that, it's a reasonable test - the requirement for the same wheels doesn't quite work when it's disc and rim brake comparison, because where are you going to get a modern rim brake aero bike (and... testing rim vs disc is a thing for itself, although my hunch - based on available data - is that we pay for the awesomeness of disc brakes by a watt or two of air resistance). As long as there's nothing obviously wrong (such as the crankset not spinning freely because of misalignment or something; the cynic in me would add "it's a Trek, after all") I don't think there's much in it when it comes to drivetrain efficiency, provided same lubricant is used (which you'd expect).
It's encouraging, anyway, that an old bike in good condition tests very close to a new one, that testing protocol can eat up any differences. Many other tests have yielded similar results, GCN testing an alloy, essentially budget, Canyon Endurace versus a top of the range Aeroad and finding not much difference in it - the Aeroad was faster, but by fairly little.
While the tires are different, they should actually be roughly about equal according to BRR, at 6 bar. Use of oval chainrings with powermeters generally changes the results - typically in the direction of over-reading, though (Assioma states this somewhere, and other people found it on tests). We're talking about relatively small error margins here, however.
Other than that, it's a reasonable test - the requirement for the same wheels doesn't quite work when it's disc and rim brake comparison, because where are you going to get a modern rim brake aero bike (and... testing rim vs disc is a thing for itself, although my hunch - based on available data - is that we pay for the awesomeness of disc brakes by a watt or two of air resistance). As long as there's nothing obviously wrong (such as the crankset not spinning freely because of misalignment or something; the cynic in me would add "it's a Trek, after all") I don't think there's much in it when it comes to drivetrain efficiency, provided same lubricant is used (which you'd expect).
It's encouraging, anyway, that an old bike in good condition tests very close to a new one, that testing protocol can eat up any differences. Many other tests have yielded similar results, GCN testing an alloy, essentially budget, Canyon Endurace versus a top of the range Aeroad and finding not much difference in it - the Aeroad was faster, but by fairly little.
Last edited by Branko D; 10-26-22 at 02:27 AM.
Likes For Branko D:
10-26-22, 03:53 AM
#34
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 8,394
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4391 Post(s)
Liked 4,833 Times
in
2,988 Posts
10-26-22, 04:00 AM
#35
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 39,229
Mentioned: 211 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18409 Post(s)
Liked 15,518 Times
in
7,324 Posts
But what is the best chain oil?
10-26-22, 04:11 AM
#36
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 8,394
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4391 Post(s)
Liked 4,833 Times
in
2,988 Posts
It's encouraging, anyway, that an old bike in good condition tests very close to a new one, that testing protocol can eat up any differences. Many other tests have yielded similar results, GCN testing an alloy, essentially budget, Canyon Endurace versus a top of the range Aeroad and finding not much difference in it - the Aeroad was faster, but by fairly little.
Likes For PeteHski:
10-26-22, 04:46 AM
#37
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: In the south but from North
Posts: 700
Bikes: Turner 5-Spot Burner converted; IBIS Ripley, Specialized Crave, Tommasini Sintesi, Cinelli Superstar, Tommasini X-Fire Gravel
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 406 Post(s)
Liked 389 Times
in
219 Posts
But what would the test result be if they did it wearing just jorts and shirtless?
Likes For vespasianus:
10-26-22, 05:33 AM
#39
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: In the south but from North
Posts: 700
Bikes: Turner 5-Spot Burner converted; IBIS Ripley, Specialized Crave, Tommasini Sintesi, Cinelli Superstar, Tommasini X-Fire Gravel
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 406 Post(s)
Liked 389 Times
in
219 Posts
10-26-22, 05:35 AM
#40
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: SE Wisconsin
Posts: 1,851
Bikes: Lemond '01 Maillot Jaune, Lemond '02 Victoire, Lemond '03 Poprad, Lemond '03 Wayzata DB conv(Poprad), '79 AcerMex Windsor Carrera Professional(pur new), '88 GT Tequesta(pur new), '01 Bianchi Grizzly, 1993 Trek 970 DB conv, Trek 8900 DB conv
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 759 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 810 Times
in
471 Posts
...another non-thread and another drama-queen is added to the ignore list
Likes For fishboat:
10-26-22, 06:04 AM
#41
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
I don't think it's all that surprising i.e. that aero gains from the frame are marginal. But that doesn't mean I would prefer to ride a steel frame. I've had several steel, alloy and carbon road frames over the years and definitely prefer the ride of modern carbon frames. As an endurance racer I value ride comfort, light weight and handling over ultimate aero performance - hence why I ride a Canyon Endurace vs Aeroroad. There are no steel-framed bikes I would consider in 2022, although I'm sure a top-end modern steel bike would perform well enough (and probably cost more than my carbon Endurace!).
A Ritchey Road Logic Disc frameset retails on Bike24 for 1364,50 Eur (I have the Ritchey Swiss Cross, which is the beefier cyclocross / gravel frame, costs the same). Canyon Endurace costs 2099 Eur complete with 105 + an Ultegra 11-34 cassette, a pair of wheels Fulcrum DB9 wheels.
If I add just the price of the R7000 105 groupset on the Ritchey - which is 829,82 Eur (not in stock, of course), it costs more; and we'd have to add at least 300-ish Eur for wheels, tires, a set of budget handlebars, saddle and bar tape, and bottom bracket, and we get 400 Euro more (Canyon probably gets the parts much cheaper, so the price of the basic CF frame is probably the same, but they don't offer that frame by itself). Is the steel bike better? Ehhh... not really, no.
Last edited by Branko D; 10-26-22 at 06:10 AM.
10-26-22, 06:34 AM
#42
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 39,229
Mentioned: 211 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18409 Post(s)
Liked 15,518 Times
in
7,324 Posts
Likes For indyfabz:
10-26-22, 06:41 AM
#43
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 5,370
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2482 Post(s)
Liked 2,952 Times
in
1,677 Posts
Likes For Trakhak:
10-26-22, 06:51 AM
#44
Sunshine
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Des Moines, IA
Posts: 16,608
Bikes: '18 class built steel roadbike, '19 Fairlight Secan, '88 Schwinn Premis , Black Mountain Cycles Monstercross V4, '89 Novara Trionfo
Mentioned: 123 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10954 Post(s)
Liked 7,481 Times
in
4,184 Posts
My question was rhetorical s8nce I don't actually expect someone t9ncount the number of aes9 bikes weighing 17#. The point was, there are very few and they are incredibly expensive. They are beyond what most can afford for a bike. And the rest would be for what?...the results would show the aero bike as faster since it's both lighter and more aero.
Likes For bblair:
10-26-22, 06:54 AM
#46
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 7,860
Mentioned: 38 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6950 Post(s)
Liked 10,958 Times
in
4,685 Posts
Yes, and I would place those handful of bike models into the 'pretty incredible' category. They are the leadng point. They are the top 0.1%. Rjet are the bleeding edge. Etc etc etc.
My question was rhetorical s8nce I don't actually expect someone t9ncount the number of aes9 bikes weighing 17#. The point was, there are very few and they are incredibly expensive. They are beyond what most can afford for a bike. And the rest would be for what?...the results would show the aero bike as faster since it's both lighter and more aero.
My question was rhetorical s8nce I don't actually expect someone t9ncount the number of aes9 bikes weighing 17#. The point was, there are very few and they are incredibly expensive. They are beyond what most can afford for a bike. And the rest would be for what?...the results would show the aero bike as faster since it's both lighter and more aero.
Likes For Koyote:
10-26-22, 07:00 AM
#47
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 9,098 Times
in
5,054 Posts
Well, considering that one of the major advantages of carbon is its ability to be molded into shapes impossible with steel, controlling for geometry is eliminating a key variable in determining speed, isn't it?
Likes For livedarklions:
10-26-22, 07:16 AM
#48
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2021
Posts: 4,083
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2333 Post(s)
Liked 2,097 Times
in
1,314 Posts
Not steel but this test returns the results I would expect: metal bikes lack the power transfer efficiency of carbon.
https://youtu.be/sjIoNK7l2PA
https://youtu.be/sjIoNK7l2PA
10-26-22, 07:31 AM
#50
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,515
Mentioned: 69 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3241 Post(s)
Liked 2,512 Times
in
1,510 Posts