9 ms·

The vibration dampening is a red herring. As a point of comparison, the differences in dampening between various frames/materials is on the order of ~1psi of t

The vibration dampening is a red herring. As a point of comparison, the differences in dampening between various frames/materials is on the order of ~1psi of tire pressure normally. In other words, if you found yourself with the harshest of frames, you could drop air pressure by 1 or 2psi and be at the same level as the "smoothest" frame.

eitally 8y ago
But dampening happens differently in different parts of the frame. For example, thinner & curved seat stays vs a suspension fork, or round 853 steel tubing vs highly aero-optimized low profile carbon, or deep dish carbon wheels vs traditional aluminum. Your statement is technically accurate, but that doesn't mean the feel of the ride will be equivalent.
- modzu 8y ago
  for real -- is an aluminum wire stiffer than a steel rod? no. bike tubes are made very differently depending on the materials; any model of stifness that you feel at your BODY needs to compensate for all of that
- gameswithgo 8y ago
  Professional level riders are absolutely certain they can feel the difference between deep carbon wheels vs aluminum when they test them. Then if you disguise the wheels such that they cannot tell which is which, they are completely unable to discern them. The same is true with frame types typically believed to be vastly different. A professional triathlete and ex cat 1 road racer I know was sure he could tell the difference between Cervelo's comfort, round tube frame (The R series) and their aerodynamic frame (the S series). He devised a helmet with an obscuring screen so he could test the two in blind fashion, and he was unable to discern which was which, by riding them. Its all just nonsense, really, imho. There are dozens of examples like these I've seen through the years. People with high degrees of expertise, certain of these feeling differences, blind them, and they can't tell.
  - eitally 8y ago
    Perhaps I unreasonable assumed we were comparing a Cervelo (any) to a wood frame, not two high-tech carbon Cervelos (fwiw, I ride an S3). There absolutely are differences and the gamut is broad, but the differences are subtle when comparing two very similar products. As an aside, the placebo effect is real, and I attribute a lot of strong product opinions re: fitness equipment (doesn't matter if bikes or running shoes) to how they make people feel, not how they objectively perform.
ubermonkey 8y ago
Are you certain about this? Because I'm not sure it's true based on my own relatively recent experience test-riding a variety of fairly serious road-cycling frames.
- cultus 8y ago
  I can't find the source at the moment, but there was actually a test done where riders rode bikes of carbon vs. alloy or steel with the frame material obscured from view. They couldn't tell the difference. When everyone is telling you that carbon has a better ride quality, it's hard not to feel it. Steel is the best frame material for 95% of people due to its durability. Quality steel frames (not Schwinn travellers) are quite light. Cro-moly frames like Salsa are a good choice and weigh around 2-3 kg vs 1-2 kg for a carbon frame. There's plenty of framebuilders who can build custom frames out of other alloys as well. There's been steel frames built down to a kilo. If you have a problem with harshness, wrap the bars with another layer of bar tape. Another option is to use wider lower PSI tires, preferably with wider 23mm rims. Not only is it softer, but the rolling resistance is actually less than standard road rims and tires.
  - ubermonkey 8y ago
    Steel might be nice, and you're right that there exist go-fast weight steel bikes, but it's also hard to find in new bikes at attractive weights & price points. The universe of go-fast road bikes is dominated by aluminum at the low end and carbon above about $1500US. >custom Sure, but that's pretty pricey compared to off-the-rack carbon or aluminum. What was the actual conclusion of the study you remember? That there's no difference? Because that seems like a questionable thing to conclude, and it makes me wonder how they controlled for other factors like frame and bike weight, differences in geometry, etc.
    - TarpitCarnivore 8y ago
      The reason you can't find them is many places just don't make them at scale and you're really left to ordering from small builders. There's some really great, top notch steel frame builders in the US right now so if you're going to do it you wont be disappointed.
zbtaylor1 8y ago
Agreed. I have two bikes - the notoriously stiff Specialized Allez Sprint (aluminum), and the Cannondale SuperSix (carbon). The carbon bike has wider wheels that allow me to run ~10psi lower than I do on the aluminum bike. Anecdotally, I can barely tell the difference between the two and the deck is stacked in favor of the carbon bike. Swap the wheels and I'm sure they would feel exactly the same aside from geometry.
- TarpitCarnivore 8y ago
  Where you will notice it most is in hard cornering and sprinting hard. You'll get more flame flex and feel then with regular riding. Carbon is also wholly dependent on how they shape and layer it for the ride, plus how thick is the aluminum.
cultus 8y ago
The gullibility of cyclists is the industry's most valuable asset. In tests, cyclists cannot tell the difference between frame materials when the frame is covered. I think it is just really seductive to think you can get magically faster by a significant amount just by buying a new frame with that new bottom bracket that's claimed to be 30% stiffer.
- dabeeeenster 8y ago
  Although I generally agree, there are a couple of things that can have a big difference. Most obvious one being proper cycling shoes and cleat peddles. Big efficiency gains there.
  - cultus 8y ago
    Oh for sure. Indexed shifting, better alloys, for example. There have been some major innovations, but most of what has come out in the last 10 years in road bikes hasn't been great. Lots of new BB standards that all creak, thinner chains, too few spokes, etc.
    - gameswithgo 8y ago
      There are certain spoke counts which have non trivial aerodynamic advantage. But going less than, I think it around 12? has greatly diminishing returns. Zipp had some good data on this years ago.
  - gameswithgo 8y ago
    People have done power and efficiency tests with cleats vs flats, usually with no difference or minimal difference One such example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNedIJBZpgM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNedIJBZpgM
- Eric_WVGG 8y ago
  There's a blogger called “Bike Snob” who has been ridiculing cyclist gullibility and fleeting trends for over ten years. One manufacturer of wooden bicycles decided to just up and send him one, and… well I'll just quote him: > Before getting the bike: Intrigued by the novelty factor and an excuse to make gratuitous wood puns > Shortly after receiving the bike: Impressed by the exquisite craftsmanship but also kind of embarrassed by it at the same time > Shortly after riding the bike for the first time: Wow, it feels great, but what's that creaking? I bet it's broken > Once I'd solved the creaking by tightening the bottom bracket: I really like riding this bike > Today: All bikes should be made of wood, metal and crabon is for vulgarians His whole shtick is being a bit jokey, but anyway he's been writing about this thing for a year now and basically loves it. I'd also like to point out that people buy bicycles for factors other than speed. Most people, I would wager.
toxik 8y ago
While true that tire stiffness is a major player in vibration transfer, it also trades off friction. As we all know, stiffer tires (higher pressure) is faster. I think you're reducing a complicated mechanical system to a few variables; mountain bikes, for example, have dedicated shock absorbers. Granted, they're for much harder impacts, but something similar could be said of high-frequency shocks.
- cultus 8y ago
  Too high pressure actually decreases efficiency. While you have less deformation of the rubber, it causes the bike to bounce over irregularities more. The energy from this bouncing is lost. On rougher roads, often pressures below 90 PSI are best.
  - toxik 8y ago
    Ok, yes, assuming traction isn't lost, stiffer is better -- really, smaller contact area is better, but that translates into stiffness. Then there is heat loss to tire deformation, of course.
    - cultus 8y ago
      Stiffness in a tire is bad. That's why more expensive tires are suppler. Energy lost due to rolling resistance on a paved road is primarily viscous dissipation due to flex of the tire. If the tire is a stiffer material, this dissipates more energy. In addition, suppler tires deform over obstacles more readily, reducing bouncing and vibration. More or less, your contact patch is pressure/weight, since the tire can't support much weight on its own. It's going to be almost the same no matter what (slick) tire you are running. Wider tires have less rolling resistance for the same pressure (to a point), since the tire deflects less to maintain the same contact patch. Two tires of the same width, one stiff and one supple, will have to bend in the same way, and have nearly identical contact patches. However, the supple one will dissipate less heat doing this.
  - ema 8y ago
    As a casual cyclist 50 psi already feels like "this is amazing I just hope my tires aren't gonna burst". So it seems "higher is better" is solid advice for most people, who aren't gonna go over 90 psi anyway.
modzu 8y ago
speaking from experience there must be something more to it (and most any experienced rider will agree): i often think my tires are flat(!) on my Ti bike even though they are higher pressure than the tires on my Al bike, because it feels that smooth
braindongle 8y ago
Woo-woo! Engineering word police, open up! "We dampen sponges. We damp vibrations."
pcarolan 8y ago
I encourage you to go test ride a steel vs an aluminum frame on a bad street and see if you still believe this. I guaruntee you will be surprised at the difference. My aluminum road bike with a carbon fork is an entirely different experience than my 35 year old steel frame Trek. Steel is an entirely different ride and quantifiably and qualifiably more enjoyable (though heavier).
GrumpiNerd 8y ago
"Dampening" is when something gets wet.

eitally 8y ago

But dampening happens differently in different parts of the frame. For example, thinner & curved seat stays vs a suspension fork, or round 853 steel tubing vs highly aero-optimized low profile carbon, or deep dish carbon wheels vs traditional aluminum. Your statement is technically accurate, but that doesn't mean the feel of the ride will be equivalent.

modzu 8y ago
for real -- is an aluminum wire stiffer than a steel rod? no. bike tubes are made very differently depending on the materials; any model of stifness that you feel at your BODY needs to compensate for all of that
gameswithgo 8y ago
Professional level riders are absolutely certain they can feel the difference between deep carbon wheels vs aluminum when they test them. Then if you disguise the wheels such that they cannot tell which is which, they are completely unable to discern them. The same is true with frame types typically believed to be vastly different. A professional triathlete and ex cat 1 road racer I know was sure he could tell the difference between Cervelo's comfort, round tube frame (The R series) and their aerodynamic frame (the S series). He devised a helmet with an obscuring screen so he could test the two in blind fashion, and he was unable to discern which was which, by riding them. Its all just nonsense, really, imho. There are dozens of examples like these I've seen through the years. People with high degrees of expertise, certain of these feeling differences, blind them, and they can't tell.
- eitally 8y ago
  Perhaps I unreasonable assumed we were comparing a Cervelo (any) to a wood frame, not two high-tech carbon Cervelos (fwiw, I ride an S3). There absolutely are differences and the gamut is broad, but the differences are subtle when comparing two very similar products. As an aside, the placebo effect is real, and I attribute a lot of strong product opinions re: fitness equipment (doesn't matter if bikes or running shoes) to how they make people feel, not how they objectively perform.

ubermonkey 8y ago

Are you certain about this? Because I'm not sure it's true based on my own relatively recent experience test-riding a variety of fairly serious road-cycling frames.

cultus 8y ago
I can't find the source at the moment, but there was actually a test done where riders rode bikes of carbon vs. alloy or steel with the frame material obscured from view. They couldn't tell the difference. When everyone is telling you that carbon has a better ride quality, it's hard not to feel it. Steel is the best frame material for 95% of people due to its durability. Quality steel frames (not Schwinn travellers) are quite light. Cro-moly frames like Salsa are a good choice and weigh around 2-3 kg vs 1-2 kg for a carbon frame. There's plenty of framebuilders who can build custom frames out of other alloys as well. There's been steel frames built down to a kilo. If you have a problem with harshness, wrap the bars with another layer of bar tape. Another option is to use wider lower PSI tires, preferably with wider 23mm rims. Not only is it softer, but the rolling resistance is actually less than standard road rims and tires.
- ubermonkey 8y ago
  Steel might be nice, and you're right that there exist go-fast weight steel bikes, but it's also hard to find in new bikes at attractive weights & price points. The universe of go-fast road bikes is dominated by aluminum at the low end and carbon above about $1500US. >custom Sure, but that's pretty pricey compared to off-the-rack carbon or aluminum. What was the actual conclusion of the study you remember? That there's no difference? Because that seems like a questionable thing to conclude, and it makes me wonder how they controlled for other factors like frame and bike weight, differences in geometry, etc.
  - TarpitCarnivore 8y ago
    The reason you can't find them is many places just don't make them at scale and you're really left to ordering from small builders. There's some really great, top notch steel frame builders in the US right now so if you're going to do it you wont be disappointed.

zbtaylor1 8y ago

Agreed. I have two bikes - the notoriously stiff Specialized Allez Sprint (aluminum), and the Cannondale SuperSix (carbon). The carbon bike has wider wheels that allow me to run ~10psi lower than I do on the aluminum bike. Anecdotally, I can barely tell the difference between the two and the deck is stacked in favor of the carbon bike. Swap the wheels and I'm sure they would feel exactly the same aside from geometry.

TarpitCarnivore 8y ago
Where you will notice it most is in hard cornering and sprinting hard. You'll get more flame flex and feel then with regular riding. Carbon is also wholly dependent on how they shape and layer it for the ride, plus how thick is the aluminum.

cultus 8y ago

The gullibility of cyclists is the industry's most valuable asset. In tests, cyclists cannot tell the difference between frame materials when the frame is covered. I think it is just really seductive to think you can get magically faster by a significant amount just by buying a new frame with that new bottom bracket that's claimed to be 30% stiffer.

dabeeeenster 8y ago
Although I generally agree, there are a couple of things that can have a big difference. Most obvious one being proper cycling shoes and cleat peddles. Big efficiency gains there.
- cultus 8y ago
  Oh for sure. Indexed shifting, better alloys, for example. There have been some major innovations, but most of what has come out in the last 10 years in road bikes hasn't been great. Lots of new BB standards that all creak, thinner chains, too few spokes, etc.
  - gameswithgo 8y ago
    There are certain spoke counts which have non trivial aerodynamic advantage. But going less than, I think it around 12? has greatly diminishing returns. Zipp had some good data on this years ago.
- gameswithgo 8y ago
  People have done power and efficiency tests with cleats vs flats, usually with no difference or minimal difference One such example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNedIJBZpgM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNedIJBZpgM
Eric_WVGG 8y ago
There's a blogger called “Bike Snob” who has been ridiculing cyclist gullibility and fleeting trends for over ten years. One manufacturer of wooden bicycles decided to just up and send him one, and… well I'll just quote him: > Before getting the bike: Intrigued by the novelty factor and an excuse to make gratuitous wood puns > Shortly after receiving the bike: Impressed by the exquisite craftsmanship but also kind of embarrassed by it at the same time > Shortly after riding the bike for the first time: Wow, it feels great, but what's that creaking? I bet it's broken > Once I'd solved the creaking by tightening the bottom bracket: I really like riding this bike > Today: All bikes should be made of wood, metal and crabon is for vulgarians His whole shtick is being a bit jokey, but anyway he's been writing about this thing for a year now and basically loves it. I'd also like to point out that people buy bicycles for factors other than speed. Most people, I would wager.

toxik 8y ago

While true that tire stiffness is a major player in vibration transfer, it also trades off friction. As we all know, stiffer tires (higher pressure) is faster. I think you're reducing a complicated mechanical system to a few variables; mountain bikes, for example, have dedicated shock absorbers. Granted, they're for much harder impacts, but something similar could be said of high-frequency shocks.

cultus 8y ago
Too high pressure actually decreases efficiency. While you have less deformation of the rubber, it causes the bike to bounce over irregularities more. The energy from this bouncing is lost. On rougher roads, often pressures below 90 PSI are best.
- toxik 8y ago
  Ok, yes, assuming traction isn't lost, stiffer is better -- really, smaller contact area is better, but that translates into stiffness. Then there is heat loss to tire deformation, of course.
  - cultus 8y ago
    Stiffness in a tire is bad. That's why more expensive tires are suppler. Energy lost due to rolling resistance on a paved road is primarily viscous dissipation due to flex of the tire. If the tire is a stiffer material, this dissipates more energy. In addition, suppler tires deform over obstacles more readily, reducing bouncing and vibration. More or less, your contact patch is pressure/weight, since the tire can't support much weight on its own. It's going to be almost the same no matter what (slick) tire you are running. Wider tires have less rolling resistance for the same pressure (to a point), since the tire deflects less to maintain the same contact patch. Two tires of the same width, one stiff and one supple, will have to bend in the same way, and have nearly identical contact patches. However, the supple one will dissipate less heat doing this.
- ema 8y ago
  As a casual cyclist 50 psi already feels like "this is amazing I just hope my tires aren't gonna burst". So it seems "higher is better" is solid advice for most people, who aren't gonna go over 90 psi anyway.

modzu 8y ago

speaking from experience there must be something more to it (and most any experienced rider will agree): i often think my tires are flat(!) on my Ti bike even though they are higher pressure than the tires on my Al bike, because it feels that smooth

braindongle 8y ago

Woo-woo! Engineering word police, open up! "We dampen sponges. We damp vibrations."

pcarolan 8y ago

I encourage you to go test ride a steel vs an aluminum frame on a bad street and see if you still believe this. I guaruntee you will be surprised at the difference. My aluminum road bike with a carbon fork is an entirely different experience than my 35 year old steel frame Trek. Steel is an entirely different ride and quantifiably and qualifiably more enjoyable (though heavier).

GrumpiNerd 8y ago

"Dampening" is when something gets wet.