Eric F 

Keep trying. It’s hilarious.

base2 

I posted a video about lateral deflection and tortional stiffness to illustrate to you, exactly what every single titanium and steel bike rider knows the first time they get on a steel or titanium bike. This is exactly what the whole flippin' point of post number 9 was. To explain with words the graphical moving picture representation on screen that for whatever reason you, until this point have been unable to grasp. The entire thread, except you, got it and have been trying to explain to you ever since.

Well of course you didn't understand it. Your refusal to learn in favor of disregarding anything that does not actively support your position is more concerning

Where in there is the claim on a carbon bikes ride quality? I used a point of reference (steel/ti) for which to draw a comparison to establish how a thing *could* be perceived in relation to said point of reference. My Cervelo R5 does indeed feel "wooden" when in direct comparison to my mixte for example (oops, diamond frame only )...I mean in comparison to any of my fleet of steel road bikes. That is not a judgement on its ride quality. In fact, if I feel I want to ride a rocketship on a century, it is ideally suited. So you can put the prejudicial conclusions that you thought I meant to say "poor," away. They make you look like a fool. I established that frame material and construction would create bikes that rode "different." Whereas you have been claiming throughout the thread that there is no difference to be had.


You didn't because you couldn't.

But you did give a wrong quote attribution in post 75.

Trakhak

Several people participating in this thread have asserted that the apparently relevant test results---those demonstrating that double-diamond frames made of steel, aluminum, or titanium cannot different significantly in vertical compliance (and maybe even in ride quality) for a given geometry---are pretty much meaningless.

So, for those folk, let's restrict the topic to steel frames.

A number of those same people would likely also assert confidently that steel frames built using different grades of, e.g., Columbus tubesets would ride perceptively differently, with the ride quality differences corresponding unmistakably to the grade of steel (e.g., Aelle versus EL-OS), the tube dimensions, and the various forms of cross-sectional manipulation. And (my favorite perplexing assertion) to the skill of the builder.

They would be wrong, apparently.

Yes, here's that 1997 Magnificent Seven article again.

As reported in the PDF linked to below, a number of experienced riders tested seven frames that had been built by Antonio Mondonico with seven different Columbus tubesets but that were identical (other than their assigned identification numbers) in every way otherwise. None of the riders knew which frame used which tubeset.

Were the riders able to distinguish reliably the more expensive tube sets from the less expensive on the basis of "ride feel"?

They were not.

An excerpt:

"For the SLX frame to be the softest seemed technically possible. While the rifling inside the down tube and seat tube was billed as the road to rigidity 10 years ago, an oversize tubeset with similarly thick tubing---like Thron---should be stiffer.

"But I picked Thron as the most shock absorbing. And I lumped Aelle, Cromor, Brain, and EL-OS together. To be honest, I couldn't feel a difference between an Aelle frame---with straight-gauge tubing and weighing in at 4 pounds 12 ounces---and an EL-OS frame---with double-butted, oversize Nivachrom tubing and only 4 pounds of heft. A conclusion that, if the marketing literature is to be believed, doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

"If the numbers on the bikes were switched around and I were to test each bike again, my guess is that I'd come up with different tubing preferences. I think my ride impressions were essentially random."

In an earlier thread where the Magnificent 7 article was referenced, one poster said, confidently, that the only reason the test results came out that way was that the later, higher-tech Columbus steel tubesets were not yet available. Interesting logic.

So---same builder. Same material. Same geometries. Different tubesets. Riders' perceptions all over the place.

Starting in 1963, I rode and raced well over a dozen steel bikes built with Columbus Aelle, SL, and SL/SP and with Reynolds 531 and 853. They were all great, but my favorite was my Bianchi Eco Pista, built with Columbus Aelle.

If I had to guess why I liked that one so much, it was the geometry. In particular, the wheelbase was around a centimeter shorter than what I was used to with my road bikes, and I liked the resulting quicker handling.

No, I never noticed any difference in "comfort" among those bikes. But I've always been able to detect a difference of even a half-centimeter between wheelbase measurements.

Then I bought my first aluminum race bike. Again, no difference in "comfort." But a big (to me, anyway) difference in wheel tracking and (therefore) in sprinting and in descending at speed, thanks to the increased torsional and lateral stiffness.

So my two remaining steel bikes (531 and 853) languish in the basement.

By the way, though I won't cite it here, you can find a Bicycling! magazine article, posted about six months ago by SpeedOfLite, that reports the results of test ride comparisons of two Trek racing bikes built in (I think) 1989, where Trek used their new aluminum frame for one and a steel frame for the other (the same model of steel fork was used for both). So the frames were of different materials, but the components and the geometries were identical.

The article concluded with the writer saying that every one of the test riders preferred the aluminum frame, especially with respect to ride feel. That was followed by a wistful observation: that, given how well steel had served for so many years, it's a shame that steel bikes would likely all but disappear from the market soon.

And, of course, for the most part, that's what happened. It took a while before lower-end bikes changed from steel to aluminum, but aluminum---and then carbon fiber---took over the specialty-bike market segment rapidly.

Yes, some hip bike shops are back to stocking some steel bikes, especially in major metropolitan areas, but most of the shops near me stock no steel bikes.

I still see steel fixed-gear bikes being ridden around here. But fewer and fewer of those are around, having been replaced by various forms of electric scooters.

I love seeing all the pictures of beautifully restored and maintained classic steel bikes on this site. And I feel nostalgic from time to time, as do, I suspect, many here, about the bikes I rode 30 or 40 or 50 or 60 years ago. But I harbor no illusions about their ride feel having been better in any way than the ride of my current aluminum bikes.

Weird. I wonder if I'm the only one here who raced steel bikes in the early '60's and for decades thereafter but who now prefers aluminum racing bikes.

Great article from the February 1996 issue of Bicycle Guide

"Can the experts REALLY tell the difference between frame tubing?"

TC1

What on Earth are you talking about? Again, no one and certainly not me, has ever suggested that lateral deflection does not occur. "Lateral" is different from "vertical". If you cannot understand that, please, to save everyone's time, desist from further comment here.

And, for the record, I've owned several titanium bikes, and a bunch of steel ones, and your comment in that first sentence is utterly wrong and displays a jarring lack of experience with actually riding bikes. For just one example, the steel frame of a Surly Pugsley will not deflect laterally as-shown in that video, and not to any visible extent.


I do understand that you are unable to differentiate between "lateral" and "vertical", and between "comfort" and "handling" -- which is very concerning. This site may be of use to you.

"Whereas a carbon frame by nature of desing is intended to resist those forces so can be perceived as "wooden" by comparison."

If you are going to invent your own terminology, you are going to need to define those words before using them. The rest of the community would consider that a judgement on its ride quality.

I did not try to guess your meaning, I simply responded to that which you wrote. That said, your writing and inconsistency there-of do an excellent job of displaying your foolishness.

You established no such thing, first of all. No more than saying "I believe in Bigfoot" establishes that bipedal apes walk our woods.

Yes, we disagree, and one of us has the support of all the relevant science, and the other has only wishful-thinking and snake-oil. Until and unless you can propose some physical explanation, or better yet, scientific evidence, to support your claims, they remain nonsense and superstition.

botty kayer

Do you even own a bike?

Eric F 

I would suggest that comparing the differences between frames made of different brands of steel, of the same diameter, and same geometry, is much like comparing brands of electric guitar strings, and claiming one can hear the difference between brands. However, stating that it is impossible to hear the difference between round-wound and flat-wound strings because they were measured to vibrate at the exact same speed is applying "science" without an understanding of the bigger picture.

I would agree that there are some factors about our bicycles that we may talk ourselves into believing, but someone insisting that all bikes must ride with the same feel/comfort, regardless of material, based on the results of a deflection test in one direction, is unknowledgeable about the stresses on a bicycle frame during use. Vertical compliance is only one factor in a system composed of many factors.

Eric F 

The accuracy of my description is irrelevant to the point, but you've done a nice job illustrating that you still don't understand.


You are so rigidly attached to the vertical plane that it's blinding you from recognizing that frames are stressed - and bend - in other directions, as well, and power has a hell of a lot to do with it. How a frame responds to a rider's power is meaningful in the perception of not only handling, but also comfort. Comfort is not only measured by our butt on the saddle, but also by our hands and feet. Yes, tires, wheels, and other components play a role. Some of them, a very significant role. However, if a bike frame were completely isolated by those components, as you have insisted, we could put our hand on our frame while riding and would never feel the vibrations of the road in the tubes.

TC1

So you are claiming that I don't understand a point that you cannot even accurately describe? You might should rethink that line of attack.


For the nth time, I never said frames do not deflect laterally -- in fact, I've said they do. However, that deflection is irrelevant to rider comfort -- and that's the point you are unable to comprehend.

Hands and feet that are not only not in contact with the frame, they are both isolated from the frame by greased bearings -- as previously explained. Do you install special audiophile-quality bearings in your bikes, to assure that they faithfully reproduce impacts and vibrations?

And that role is entirely responsible for ride comfort, as has been repeatedly proven.

Again, the rider does not touch the frame! Have you ever actually ridden a bicycle, or seen someone do so? Please stop with the ridiculous nonsense, as you are wasting everyone's time.

Eric F 

Going back to the original question...

In my experience, the feel of a bike is going to be affected by a lot of factors, and making a definitive determination based on just frame material is not realistic. Geometry, tube size/shape, etc. will all play a part in the final result. Bigger factors to how is feels under your butt, hands, and feet will be the components. For a gravel bike, the biggest thing will be tires. For CF, the response of the frame can be manipulated in more ways than metals, just because the nature of the material permits it. CF might provide a ride feel you prefer over Ti...or it might not. Will CF and Ti feel different? Probably. Better? That's subjective to each person's preferences. Don't discount aesthetics as a valid factor. Being exited about the appearance of your bike is totally okay! If you like the look of skinny round Ti tubes, rather than the manipulated shapes of modern CF, that's just fine.

Trakhak

If you're looking for a more appropriate analogy, there are people on musician forums arguing about the merits of two specific bass amplifiers---one an older, class A/B amp (praised for its "heft," "slam," and "grunt") with big transformers, and the other class D, lacking those (unquantifiable, of course) characteristics.

The argument continues, even after it was pointed out that the person was arguing with the guy who designed both amps and who had provided test data disproving the claims. (I posted as follows: ' "Heft," slam," and "grunt": God's gifts to people who don't trust numbers.' Got a like from the amp guy, gratifyingly.)

What are your thoughts about the substance of my post---specifically, about the Bicycle Guide reviewers being unable to distinguish among the steel tube sets and the Bicycling! magazine test riders uniformly preferring the Trek aluminum-frame bike to the otherwise identical steel version?

Eric F 

As a bass player, familiar with bass amps, I'm aware of your reference. I've played old tube amps, hybrid amps, and digital amps. They all make loud noises. There is something in the subtle quality of the hybrid amp sound that made it my favorite, and the one I chose to play for years. Maybe the difference in tone only exists in my head, but it still matters to me. I'm also aware that in a blues/rock band context, zero people - including me - can hear the difference, any more than anyone can hear the difference between the maple or mahogany fretboard on the guitar player's favorite axe.

IMO, there are sometimes differences in things that people can detect, and sometimes only think they can detect. However, sometimes people develop a sensitivity/awareness to factors that other people aren't in tune with, and sometimes those people are told their awareness doesn't exist. I think the Bicycle Guide experiment was interesting, but I wouldn't extrapolate it into a concrete conclusion that no one is able to feel a difference between two bikes.

One Wheel

Experienced violinists can fairly reliably, in blind experiments, accurately guess the quality (approximated by price range) of violins. There are lots of different ways a violin can be good, bad, or mediocre; they're not identifying any clearly measurable aspect of the instrument or its maker and history. Acoustics can be very subtle.

base2 

But you did. Here are your words:
Trakhak Changing the arena to the difference (if any) to one grade of purity or composition of one material to another is an example of special pleading. Your fallacy is: Composition/Division.
You like tortionally stiff frames. Good for you.

Polaris OBark

The humility is refreshing, but I don't think you are wrong.

I can feel differences between my two steel road bike frames, and more pronounced differences still compared to my wife's titanium frame (which I built up to otherwise match one of my steel bikes -- same tires, components, etc, so it is a reasonable control).

I do understand that carbon can be taylored for any desired frame characteristics, but it is typical at least with the major brands to design these to be less forgiving/flexible.

Eric F 

No doubt at all. Meanwhile, those without the experience to perceive the differences may insist that differences do not exist, and bring "science" to prove it.

Eric F 

TC1 insists that only vertical compliance is responsible for comfort. This is the hill he is dying on. Repeatedly. TC1 has stated that lateral compliance is irrelevant to comfort. This is where TC1 and I vastly differ.

Trakhak

To anyone who is annoyed by my dragging this thread even further into the weeds of irrelevance, I apologize. That said, I persist for this one post:

I absolutely agree that finding the right bass amp is crucial. Maybe especially in a blues/rock band. That's about as exposed as a bass player gets. If the dynamic and tonal response of the amp is right, then there it is: the effortless give-and-take with the other musicians that's the best part of playing in a band.

All any of us need to do is find what works for us. For me, it's aluminum bikes (currently, anyway). And a Peavey Headliner amp, believe it or not. (BobbyB, formerly a Peavey amp designer and a participant on the TalkBass forum some years ago, once remarked, in response to a post of mine extolling my Headliner amp in a thread there, that "The MiniMega was designed to provide sophisticated tone shaping for modern music. The Headliner was designed for unbridled volume.")

(P.S.---52Telecaster once posted a video of his blues band in a Foo thread. He's an intimidatingly formidable guitarist, and he has a killer bass player.)

TC1

And that precisely and pointedly does not say that lateral deflection does not exist. Your reading comprehension, or honesty -- maybe both -- needs quite a lot of work.

TC1

So why are those who should have that experience also unable to perceive any differences, when tested? Evidence for which has been previously cited in this thread.

Let me guess -- because you are such an incredibly gifted, experienced, and sensitive cyclist that you can perceive that which no one else can, because you are just so darn great. This particular psychology, in case you were wondering, is called "delusions of grandeur", and it, too, is quite common. In reality, however, "You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake" -- sorry to break it to you.

TC1

I have to add some characters here, to make this comment long enough to be accepted. Suffice it to say, interested parties will want to read that article, and potentially stop blathering nonsense.

shelbyfv

Judging by past threads there is much more to come before the lock.

Seems unlikely.

base2 

But you continued in your post the following:
What else is a reasonable person to understand what you mean?

You've tied yourself to this whole vertical compliance thing (which nobody denies, BTW) AND rejected any other potential explaination until the same source you claimed (Cycling About) offered the exact same information. Personal incredulity.

This would be sad if it wasn't so entertaining.

Eric F 

Humans aren't all wired the same. My wife has a good bit more sensitive palate than mine when it comes to identifying flavors in wine, despite me having put more effort into attempting to educate myself in that area.

You're not very good at guessing. I have never claimed to have any sensitivities about bicycles that aren't also shared with other people on this site, and other people I ride with. Some folks have shared their similar experiences in this thread. I'm nothing special at all.

Eric F 

You're a TB guy?? Somehow, I'm not surprised - LOL I spent a lot of years posting there (same user name), but haven't stopped by in a long time. Personally, my weapon of mass destruction is an Aguilar DB750, which replaced a '90s SVT. I've gotten better "SVT" tone from the Aggie and a SansAmp. I remember 52Tele from my earlier days on the FDP forum.

EDIT: IMO, sensitivity for differences in bike frames (or any other part of the system) is right along there with musical instruments. While technique, strings, amp, and a number of other things might make a bigger difference in tone, the subtle difference in tone between new Fralin pups and vintage Fender pups can be heard. This is another example of when someone might not be able to pick one or the other accurately in a blind test, but when compared side-by-side, the difference becomes noticeable for someone with the experience/ability to hear it. I can hear the differences between these 3 guitars, but I can't say that I can accurately ID them in a blind test... That said, there very well might be people who can, and it wouldn't surprise me a bit.

EDIT 2: For the video above, someone could do a scientific study, and produce data indicating that all 3 guitars played the same notes, for the same durations, at the same tempo, and come to a conclusion that there is no difference between them. That conclusion might even be cited as "scientific evidence" that they are identical. In the real world, they are not identical. Science is blind, but don't be blinded by it.

79pmooney

[QUOTE=Trakhak;23065524...

(P.S.---52Telecaster once posted a video of his blues band in a Foo thread. He's an intimidatingly formidable guitarist, and he has a killer bass player.)[/QUOTE]

Wish I'd had known this before I rode with Gugie, 52Telecaster, Andy K and others a couple of summers ago. I'd have brought my harp!

(I have 3 amps, a sweet 12W, 12" custom tube that sounds wonderful in the living room but isn't up to the guitar amps. (Feedback.) A Roland solid state Blues Cube. Lighter, a lot more powerful, decent sound but still feedback challenged. And a Victoria. Last tube amp at a closeout sale. 1960s rock reverb. Heavy! But 3 10"s and 40W. Feedback free! Fully up to the guitars. And wonderful sound, if not quite classic blues. The piece that glues it all together is the Astatic mic that fits so well in my hand and that I have played through for more than 3 decades. I think it is part of the feedback challenge but when things are right - )