3 ms·
Funny how the website only highlights the advantages of wood as a material, and plays down its disadvantages. Namely, a stiffer, more rigid frame is more effici
by seotut2 8y ago
Funny how the website only highlights the advantages of wood as a material, and plays down its disadvantages. Namely, a stiffer, more rigid frame is more efficient. I personally loved how my aluminium road bike rode, more so than steel, particularly because I can feel the road, and my pedal strokes have a more direct feedback.
If a frame absorbs some of that vibration, it is naturally going to absorb some of your energy. So "harshest" ride quality isn't exactly the term I'd assign to aluminum.
- mcv 8y agoI guess it depends on the kind of bike experience you want. I see people riding extraordinarily impractical bikes every single day. Of course that would make wooden bikes a matter of taste, and not superior by any stretch of the imagination.
- bitexploder 8y agoHow impractical can a bike be if it gets the job done? Or did you mean in some not utilitarian context?
- mcv 8y agoThey get the job done, but require much more energy to do it. Some bikes are more about looks than practicality.
- lazerwalker 8y agoAgree completely, although I wouldn't go so far as to say looks are the only reason someone would ride an 'impractical' bike. I pretty much only use fixed-gear bikes for city riding, even in cities like San Francisco and Seattle with tons of hills (albeit one with handbrakes — I'm not suicidal). I like the way they look and feel, and there are other benefits (generally cheaper, easier to maintain, etc) but the main thing I like is the "impracticality". Cycling is my main form of exercise, and on any given day the bulk of my moving-around time might be biking to/from the coffee shop or my coworking space. The inefficient energy consumption and increased cardio is a feature.
- michaelmior 8y ago> not superior by any stretch of the imagination. I think it's safe to assume each rider has a different utility function, in some cases drastically different. "Extraordinarily impractical" bikes may very well have other upsides for a particular rider that outweigh the disadvantages for them.
- fifnir 8y agoIt's also safe to point out that the vast majority of people for the vast majority of topics don't know and don't care. Don't tell me the people who go around cycling on tiny bikes with their heels on the pedal and their knees reaching their throat have found some kind of alternative definition of practicality...
- michaelmior 8y agoI didn't say anything about an alternative definition of practicality. I said that practicality might not be as important for some people.
- mcv 8y agoOf course. Looks are a big one. Attitude, style, art, standing out. Historical appreciation. And some bikes are impractical in one way but extremely practical in another, like folding bikes. I have no experience with them myself, but I expect the riding experience to be mediocre. But the ability to fold them up and take them with you is fantastically useful.
- dmurray 8y agoYou can read the title as "ways in which wooden bikes are superior" - a reasonable topic for a company selling wooden bikes - rather than "wooden bikes are superior in every way, and here's why". The former is also more consistent with the actual title of the article, "Why wood".
- gameswithgo 8y ago>Namely, a stiffer, more rigid frame is more efficient Engineers have tried to measure efficiency differences between different types of typical road frames and been unable. This isn't really an important effect in terms of how fast you go, even if it feels better. Most of the energy in frame flex seems to be returned.