Wooden bikes(materiabikes.com)
materiabikes.com
Wooden bikes
https://materiabikes.com/2018/10/24/why-wood/
237 comments
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
I found a sequence of updates from the guy if anyone is interested:
https://bikesnobnyc.blogspot.com/2017/11/bsnyc-field-trip-20...
https://bikesnobnyc.blogspot.com/2017/11/would-that-i-could....
https://bikesnobnyc.blogspot.com/2017/11/this-title-is-100-f...
https://bikesnobnyc.blogspot.com/2018/06/wood-bike-status-up...
https://bikesnobnyc.blogspot.com/2018/01/sawdust-in-wind.htm...
read for yourself
https://bikesnobnyc.blogspot.com/2017/11/bsnyc-field-trip-20...
https://bikesnobnyc.blogspot.com/2017/11/would-that-i-could....
https://bikesnobnyc.blogspot.com/2017/11/this-title-is-100-f...
https://bikesnobnyc.blogspot.com/2018/06/wood-bike-status-up...
https://bikesnobnyc.blogspot.com/2018/01/sawdust-in-wind.htm...
read for yourself
In tests, cyclists cannot tell the difference between frame materials when the frame is covered.
Man, I have a hard time believing that. Now, I've not done a blind taste test, but I truly believe I'll tell the difference between a good carbon frame and an aluminum frame of equal quality. All of the frames in my garage have noticeably different characteristics, and it can't all be placebo. But, I'm an ex-racer, blah, blah, so maybe most people can't tell the difference.
new bottom bracket that's claimed to be 30% stiffer.
OTOH, if a Cat 3 thinks he's putting out enough power to torque a modern bottom bracket, yeah, he's deluding himself.
Man, I have a hard time believing that. Now, I've not done a blind taste test, but I truly believe I'll tell the difference between a good carbon frame and an aluminum frame of equal quality. All of the frames in my garage have noticeably different characteristics, and it can't all be placebo. But, I'm an ex-racer, blah, blah, so maybe most people can't tell the difference.
new bottom bracket that's claimed to be 30% stiffer.
OTOH, if a Cat 3 thinks he's putting out enough power to torque a modern bottom bracket, yeah, he's deluding himself.
I agree with you regarding the specific bikes I've personally experienced. But if I'm doing a blind "riding effort" test and am not allowed to lift the frame by hand, I doubt I could differentiate between all the contributing factors to effort.
I think this is oversimplifying how changes in material and aerodynamics can improve performance. A person such as yourself might not be impressed by a “new bottom bracket” with 30% increased stiffness, but someone who races might. Every ounce and second counts.
Every ounce and second counts.
Ex-racer here, and I'll back that statement up. Trick is, which expensive doohickey actually saves a second or an ounce? Or more realistically, since seconds and ounces can actually be measured by a layman, is the bottom bracket actually stiffer? Are you two seconds faster today because of the bottom bracket, or because you're just faster? Was it the smoother shifting of the new chain rings that saved those seconds? Maybe you need a $1000 power meter so you can get the telemetry needed to make sure.
IOW, many thousands have been spent by myself and others to gain only perceived, but not measurable, differences. And, oh how the component marketers know that.
Ex-racer here, and I'll back that statement up. Trick is, which expensive doohickey actually saves a second or an ounce? Or more realistically, since seconds and ounces can actually be measured by a layman, is the bottom bracket actually stiffer? Are you two seconds faster today because of the bottom bracket, or because you're just faster? Was it the smoother shifting of the new chain rings that saved those seconds? Maybe you need a $1000 power meter so you can get the telemetry needed to make sure.
IOW, many thousands have been spent by myself and others to gain only perceived, but not measurable, differences. And, oh how the component marketers know that.
Moreover, the example of "In tests, cyclists cannot tell the difference between frame materials when the frame is covered." - who cares?
I probably wouldn't notice the difference between some quality swimming gear vs elite (gold medal quality?) swimming gear either. Running shoes, etc.
Since when does a humans ability to determine minute differences in materials actually matter? Why would we care would opinion the biker has of the material? If it's objectively better, and better is defined by measurable, quantifiable metrics - then what do we care? We're not talking about a wine-snob scenario. Where it's purely subjective opinion based. We're talking about performance characteristics that, when used in competitive scenarios, actually matter.
Now does it objectively matter to some "bike snob" just riding to work? Eh, maybe not. Sure he may make it to work 1m faster due to an objectively better frame, but who cares. Yet, the fact that the bikers use case is subjective does not invalidate more objective use cases for better frames/etc.
I probably wouldn't notice the difference between some quality swimming gear vs elite (gold medal quality?) swimming gear either. Running shoes, etc.
Since when does a humans ability to determine minute differences in materials actually matter? Why would we care would opinion the biker has of the material? If it's objectively better, and better is defined by measurable, quantifiable metrics - then what do we care? We're not talking about a wine-snob scenario. Where it's purely subjective opinion based. We're talking about performance characteristics that, when used in competitive scenarios, actually matter.
Now does it objectively matter to some "bike snob" just riding to work? Eh, maybe not. Sure he may make it to work 1m faster due to an objectively better frame, but who cares. Yet, the fact that the bikers use case is subjective does not invalidate more objective use cases for better frames/etc.
>Since when does a humans ability to determine minute differences in materials actually matter?
when the difference we are talking about is "ride quality" then humans noticing is the only thing that matters. If we were talking about speed, then it wouldn't.
when the difference we are talking about is "ride quality" then humans noticing is the only thing that matters. If we were talking about speed, then it wouldn't.
The problem is like 0.2% of cyclists actually race but it's about 95% of marketing.
And arguably, if the goal is to get a workout, an easier ride just means you’ll have to cycle longer to reach your goal.
Counterpoint: for me, buying an easier (in my case: much lighter) bike, was the difference between deciding to ride or to not ride at all.
I don't think I'm alone in that.
I don't think I'm alone in that.
You're definitely not wrong. I can (and have) ridden my cyclocross bike for hours, which I have no desire of attempting on a Citibike, what I was using before I bought my own bike.
Sure but to you and go: you don't need to spend 10k to get a bike that meets those needs. Anything in the 1-2k range (eg laptop) prices is a very very nice bike.
Both of my favorite bikes are cyclocross bikes. The first one I got used and upgraded the componyts to ultegra and bb7 discs. Was around 900 all in.
I may be a bit hypocrite with my second bike which was a factory replace of the first with a top of the line racing cyclo cf frame (weld failed). But the cost and some velocity touring wheels (which caused the frame failure in the first frame by moving stress off the wheels). So to me that bike cost $1200... But is likely a $4k bike. I don't know if that makes me a hypocrite or just savvy. But a lot of the bikes I test ride in the 1-2k range we're super nice. And there were plenty in the 700-1000 range as well (trick in Seattle is to buy bikes in August when the Google kids and M$ kids are going back to school)
Both of my favorite bikes are cyclocross bikes. The first one I got used and upgraded the componyts to ultegra and bb7 discs. Was around 900 all in.
I may be a bit hypocrite with my second bike which was a factory replace of the first with a top of the line racing cyclo cf frame (weld failed). But the cost and some velocity touring wheels (which caused the frame failure in the first frame by moving stress off the wheels). So to me that bike cost $1200... But is likely a $4k bike. I don't know if that makes me a hypocrite or just savvy. But a lot of the bikes I test ride in the 1-2k range we're super nice. And there were plenty in the 700-1000 range as well (trick in Seattle is to buy bikes in August when the Google kids and M$ kids are going back to school)
Yeah, and I definitely didn't spend close to that much on it. It would still hurt me to have to replace it though, hence my preference for not locking it up outside. My point was more that, based on how I use it, it could've been a $10K bike.
I have several hours of work invested into my bike too, having installed proper fenders, a rear rack, and some safety equipment like lights and bells. That plus the ~$700 I have in it all told would not be enjoyable to replace.
I have several hours of work invested into my bike too, having installed proper fenders, a rear rack, and some safety equipment like lights and bells. That plus the ~$700 I have in it all told would not be enjoyable to replace.
Or just cycle faster on a better/lighter bike.
Marketing is addressing the audience members not as what they are, but as what they aspire to be.
I am a former racer (cat 2). Every ounce does not count in amateur bike races, because such differences are dwarfed by differences in fitness. Significant figures. Aero drag matters a lot, and most of that is from the rider.
Races sometimes are very close, but they are that close only because the pack or a breakaway finish together. When the sprint happens, there are only a few seconds for riders to pull away from each other. In these cases, minor differences in efficiency still don't matter because it is over such a short time frame.
Races sometimes are very close, but they are that close only because the pack or a breakaway finish together. When the sprint happens, there are only a few seconds for riders to pull away from each other. In these cases, minor differences in efficiency still don't matter because it is over such a short time frame.
Do you have references to those tests? My personal experience says otherwise. I have steel, aluminum, titanium road bikes of about the same pedigree and setups. The different materials absolutely provide a different ride. But, if I'm thrown on some random, unfamiliar bike and ride it for a short period of time, I probably couldn't guess the frame material.
I have a Scandium bike too with an oversized bottom bracket. Being 200lbs, on a climb, I can definitely feel the difference the bottom bracket makes. All the other bikes flex a little when I stand up and crank. Not the Scandium bike. Maybe that's unimportant to you, but I really enjoy the feeling of stomping on the pedals and having the bike immediately respond to the power.
I have a Scandium bike too with an oversized bottom bracket. Being 200lbs, on a climb, I can definitely feel the difference the bottom bracket makes. All the other bikes flex a little when I stand up and crank. Not the Scandium bike. Maybe that's unimportant to you, but I really enjoy the feeling of stomping on the pedals and having the bike immediately respond to the power.
Back when I used to ride road bikes, I upgraded from a decade old (but very well maintained) aluminium Trek 1000 to a carbon fibre Merida Scultura.
I had the same tyres, pedals, and shoes on my new bike (switched them over). I had a 3-4 km/h improvement on average on the flats instantly. So my new carbon bike was objectively better than my old aluminium bike.
I'm not sure if the improvement was because the bike was brand new, or because it was carbon and had higher end components, but it was definitely there.
I had the same tyres, pedals, and shoes on my new bike (switched them over). I had a 3-4 km/h improvement on average on the flats instantly. So my new carbon bike was objectively better than my old aluminium bike.
I'm not sure if the improvement was because the bike was brand new, or because it was carbon and had higher end components, but it was definitely there.
The vast majority of energy on a bike goes to aero drag, and most of that is the rider. Are you in a more aero position on the Merida? That would fully account for it.
The difference in weight is not capable of causing much difference on flats, since it would just slightly increase rolling resistance. The differences in mechanical efficiency of well-tuned road bikes is also pretty negligible.
The difference in weight is not capable of causing much difference on flats, since it would just slightly increase rolling resistance. The differences in mechanical efficiency of well-tuned road bikes is also pretty negligible.
I'm curious what your new bike is. I currently have a 12 year old (but well maintained) Trek 1000. I'd like to get some better derailleurs (I'm constantly having to adjust and clean mine). But maybe I'll just get a better bike, I don't know.
EDIT: oh, you already said it: Merida Scultura
EDIT: oh, you already said it: Merida Scultura
I actually really liked my Trek 1000. I was very tempted at the time to just get a new groupset and wheels for the thing, but I had a really good deal on the Merida.
It's a very well built frame, it doesn't look the prettiest, but it gets the job done.
It's a very well built frame, it doesn't look the prettiest, but it gets the job done.
That seems like a lot just due to a frame change.
If I had to guess, more gear ratios, newer bearings, and rim profile probably all contributed to that. And maybe just a little bit of placebo...
If I had to guess, more gear ratios, newer bearings, and rim profile probably all contributed to that. And maybe just a little bit of placebo...
It's similar to any hobby that attracts both disposable income and pseudoscience. Audiophiles. Skiers. Surfers. Surgeons. (Kidding.)
[deleted]
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.
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
One such example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNedIJBZpgM
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
Woo-woo! Engineering word police, open up! "We dampen sponges. We damp vibrations."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
On a road bike, you will get a pinch flat from running tires that low, where the tube gets cut between the rim and the ground.
Recommended pressure always varies. With wider tires, you typically must run them lower, since a too-high pressure will cause the tire to blow off the rim.
Recommended pressure always varies. With wider tires, you typically must run them lower, since a too-high pressure will cause the tire to blow off the rim.
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.
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.
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.
> As we all know, stiffer tires (higher pressure) is faster.
This is not correct. Optimum speed comes are optimum pressure, which is usually quite a bit lower than most cyclists imagine. Going too high results in worse rolling resistance, AND worse handling AND worse comfort.
As a ballpack figure for a road bike, a 25c tire will usually have optimum rolling resistance at around 90-100psi for typical male rider mass and road surfaces.
And the faster, better handling tires also have less rolling resistance, but less durability.
This is not correct. Optimum speed comes are optimum pressure, which is usually quite a bit lower than most cyclists imagine. Going too high results in worse rolling resistance, AND worse handling AND worse comfort.
As a ballpack figure for a road bike, a 25c tire will usually have optimum rolling resistance at around 90-100psi for typical male rider mass and road surfaces.
And the faster, better handling tires also have less rolling resistance, but less durability.
> As we all know, stiffer tires (higher pressure) is faster.
We're living in interesting times for this "conventional" wisdom! One school of thought argues that while there might be a theoretical relationship between high pressure and low rolling resistance, but the real-world effect has been exaggerated by poor testing methodology, which usually involves a circular drum as a substitute for a flat road. And that the benefits of achieving low rolling resistance are offset by the losses due to increased vibration.
Of course, this school of thought is largely the product of one man, Jan Heine of Compass Bicycles, but it's interesting to read and consider. Personally, I made the jump from 23mm road tires at 120psi to 48mm slick tires at ~40psi this year, and I have to say, my average speed didn't take a hit at all on the road and am much happier and more comfortable.
https://janheine.wordpress.com/2018/05/02/testing-tires-isnt...
https://janheine.wordpress.com/2016/03/09/tire-pressure-take...
We're living in interesting times for this "conventional" wisdom! One school of thought argues that while there might be a theoretical relationship between high pressure and low rolling resistance, but the real-world effect has been exaggerated by poor testing methodology, which usually involves a circular drum as a substitute for a flat road. And that the benefits of achieving low rolling resistance are offset by the losses due to increased vibration.
Of course, this school of thought is largely the product of one man, Jan Heine of Compass Bicycles, but it's interesting to read and consider. Personally, I made the jump from 23mm road tires at 120psi to 48mm slick tires at ~40psi this year, and I have to say, my average speed didn't take a hit at all on the road and am much happier and more comfortable.
https://janheine.wordpress.com/2018/05/02/testing-tires-isnt...
https://janheine.wordpress.com/2016/03/09/tire-pressure-take...
Just curious, with the same set of tires, didn't you ever notice how much easier it is biking uphill when you don't neglect to inflate the tires before the ride? I'm not a competitive cyclist, but I'm on a bike every day and I notice it on my bikes (mountain, thick heavy tires and road, slick tires).
Sure. There's an optimal tire pressure for each tire, and the wider the tire, the lower the pressure. The point I was making was that a wide tire at optimal (low) pressure is not significantly slower than a narrow tire at optimal (high) pressure. However, any particular tire can be underinflated relative to its optimum, and become sluggish.
On my mountain bike it's very noticeable when I'm below 30 psi on a road, but the difference between 30 and 50 is not noticeable in terms of speed (hard cornering does feel a bit different).
I do, the difference is "woah this thing powers itself" kind of noticeable. Sure I could get the same average speed on my ride, but at the cost of so much more effort on low pressure tires.
Bicycle Quarterly put forward the idea that higher presure tyres feel faster because they transmit more vibration. Normally we would feel that vibration increasing as we go faster.
However,even though they feel faster, they’re actually slower. That extra vibration is coming from vertical deflection that a more supple (lower presure) tyre would allow to stay as forward momentum.
Personally I keep “25mm” (GP4Ks always seem to measure closer to 27mm for me) somewhere between 70-80 psi but then I’m the sort of madman that thinks I can feel the difference with latex inner tubes.
However,even though they feel faster, they’re actually slower. That extra vibration is coming from vertical deflection that a more supple (lower presure) tyre would allow to stay as forward momentum.
Personally I keep “25mm” (GP4Ks always seem to measure closer to 27mm for me) somewhere between 70-80 psi but then I’m the sort of madman that thinks I can feel the difference with latex inner tubes.
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.
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.
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.
A quality carbon frame can range anywhere from 700g-1500g. I would say that was quite a bit lighter than a 3kg steel frame.
As for durability, I’ve been riding a 1200g Bianchi 928 for the last 12 years with no change in its behaviour.
Unlike steel or aluminium, carbon fibre doesn’t work harden so, as long as you don’t crash it, it will be MORE durable than steel.
Also because carbon frames are layed up by hand, you can can have different properties vertically vs laterally. So stiff side to side but with vertical flex at the bottom bracket ...or anything else you want.
You can even put stuff like flax seed in the resin to absorb vibration, just like this wooden frame claims to do.
Carbon is a better material for bikes than steel is.
It just lacks the romance because it’s harder for a lone bloke in his shed to weld.
(I still want one of these wooden bikes because n+1 and can you imagine rocking up to a club ride on one. :D )
As for durability, I’ve been riding a 1200g Bianchi 928 for the last 12 years with no change in its behaviour.
Unlike steel or aluminium, carbon fibre doesn’t work harden so, as long as you don’t crash it, it will be MORE durable than steel.
Also because carbon frames are layed up by hand, you can can have different properties vertically vs laterally. So stiff side to side but with vertical flex at the bottom bracket ...or anything else you want.
You can even put stuff like flax seed in the resin to absorb vibration, just like this wooden frame claims to do.
Carbon is a better material for bikes than steel is.
It just lacks the romance because it’s harder for a lone bloke in his shed to weld.
(I still want one of these wooden bikes because n+1 and can you imagine rocking up to a club ride on one. :D )
>Unlike steel or aluminium, carbon fibre doesn’t work harden so, as long as you don’t crash it, it will be MORE durable than steel.
Steel is almost perfectly elastic below its fatigue limit. It never fails for stress underneath this, since the elastic motion doesn't generate new dislocations or anything. It is true that aluminum has no lower fatigue limit, but outside of crashes, this occurs so slowly as to be meaningless on human timescales.
>Also because carbon frames are layed up by hand, you can can have different properties vertically vs laterally. So stiff side to side but with vertical flex at the bottom bracket ...or anything else you want.
That is 100% not true. Bike frames are all highly stiff vertically because of the diamond tube shape. There is no practical bikeframe of any material that has non-negligible vertical compliance. That is just marketing fluff.
Steel is almost perfectly elastic below its fatigue limit. It never fails for stress underneath this, since the elastic motion doesn't generate new dislocations or anything. It is true that aluminum has no lower fatigue limit, but outside of crashes, this occurs so slowly as to be meaningless on human timescales.
>Also because carbon frames are layed up by hand, you can can have different properties vertically vs laterally. So stiff side to side but with vertical flex at the bottom bracket ...or anything else you want.
That is 100% not true. Bike frames are all highly stiff vertically because of the diamond tube shape. There is no practical bikeframe of any material that has non-negligible vertical compliance. That is just marketing fluff.
> Steel is the best frame material for 95% of people due to its durability. Quality steel frames (not Schwinn travellers) are quite light.
I have a bike made with True Temper OX Platinum steel and it is my favorite bike by far. It is a very light frame, but that is not what I like about it. Steel (and titanium) frames can be made with tubing of a much smaller diameter than that of aluminum or carbon. I believe that the tube diameter (and associated stiffness) is what people are feeling when they talk about the difference between bikes.
If you make a steel bike with tubing that is indistinguishable from aluminum or carbon, I am not surprised that nobody can tell the difference!
I have a bike made with True Temper OX Platinum steel and it is my favorite bike by far. It is a very light frame, but that is not what I like about it. Steel (and titanium) frames can be made with tubing of a much smaller diameter than that of aluminum or carbon. I believe that the tube diameter (and associated stiffness) is what people are feeling when they talk about the difference between bikes.
If you make a steel bike with tubing that is indistinguishable from aluminum or carbon, I am not surprised that nobody can tell the difference!
It seems like you might be discounting the different characteristics of the materials themselves, though.
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.
>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.
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.
Again, though, on a dollar for dollar basis, you'll spend much more on steel than you will on off-the-rack carbon, so it's a niche market.
Most serious riders are also cultivating a relationship with a local shop, and that drives some choices, too. For example, when I bought my bike, I did slightly prefer the one I bought (a Specialized Roubaix) over the endurance-geometry offerings from Trek, Cannondale, Giant, etc. However, the other part of the decision was that I liked the shop in question MUCH MUCH more than any of the other shops, in terms of location, vibe, friendliness, overall impressions, mechanic repuation, etc. I would've bought from this shop even if the bike they were selling wasn't my first choice, as long as the margin was small (and they were).
Steel makers don't have that dealer network.
Most serious riders are also cultivating a relationship with a local shop, and that drives some choices, too. For example, when I bought my bike, I did slightly prefer the one I bought (a Specialized Roubaix) over the endurance-geometry offerings from Trek, Cannondale, Giant, etc. However, the other part of the decision was that I liked the shop in question MUCH MUCH more than any of the other shops, in terms of location, vibe, friendliness, overall impressions, mechanic repuation, etc. I would've bought from this shop even if the bike they were selling wasn't my first choice, as long as the margin was small (and they were).
Steel makers don't have that dealer network.
[deleted]
You have to blind yourself when testing. The human mind just can't handle perception!
> The human mind just can't handle perception!
"If the doors of perception were cleansed every thing would appear to man as it is: Infinite. For man has closed himself up, till he sees all things thro' narrow chinks of his cavern."
More to the point, however, I think that human minds often handle perception in general, but the problem of objectively observing the subjective is somewhat less tractable.
"If the doors of perception were cleansed every thing would appear to man as it is: Infinite. For man has closed himself up, till he sees all things thro' narrow chinks of his cavern."
More to the point, however, I think that human minds often handle perception in general, but the problem of objectively observing the subjective is somewhat less tractable.
"Dampening" is when something gets wet.
I use a bike as my primary transportation (I live in a very, very bike friendly city) and I don't think I have ever seen a wooden bike.
Vibrations from the road is not something I've ever considered since it has not been a problem in any of the bikes that I've had.
My primary considerations when considering a bike would be: * Price * Durability * Cargo support (like basket and rear hub)
Vibrations from the road is not something I've ever considered since it has not been a problem in any of the bikes that I've had.
My primary considerations when considering a bike would be: * Price * Durability * Cargo support (like basket and rear hub)
We have quite a few wooden (I think mainly bamboo) bikes in Switzerland. I've never used one (they're quite bulky and expensive) but they are definitely common enough for people not to take notice of them when they cycle past.
If you do a road trip more than 80km, you feel the vibration. I find aluminum is worse than steel.
With short, daily trips, I don't think people notice vibration.
I've done a road trip more than 1000k on a ~$100 aluminum frame and vibration was never even a minor concern.
If you're going at very high speed or constant rough ground I can see how it'll get you, but seat design and quality of shifting/braking components were by far the biggest factors.
My 2 cents, steel is better, I've had wrist issues with an aluminum bike that I just don't get with the steel one. It seems to dampen and absorb the high frequency vibrations.
Generally speaking this stiffness is the result of the tube shapes necessary to achieve similar strength and stiffness of a steel frame while weighing less.
A perfect example of this is the Cannondale CAD3. It had a massive downtube and huge (straight) seat stays as well. It was extraordinarily stiff and terribly unpleasant to ride, for most. Cannondale improved that to some degree by using S-shaped seat stays on the CAAD4 making the frame a less-efficient conductor of vibrations.
Modern aluminum bikes use hydroformed tubes with optimized shapes and shouldn't really have these problems. Unless you're talking about something with an aluminum fork. That's just a cheap bike. Aluminum forks are terrible.
A perfect example of this is the Cannondale CAD3. It had a massive downtube and huge (straight) seat stays as well. It was extraordinarily stiff and terribly unpleasant to ride, for most. Cannondale improved that to some degree by using S-shaped seat stays on the CAAD4 making the frame a less-efficient conductor of vibrations.
Modern aluminum bikes use hydroformed tubes with optimized shapes and shouldn't really have these problems. Unless you're talking about something with an aluminum fork. That's just a cheap bike. Aluminum forks are terrible.
"hydroformed tubes"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WpGsJKVhZY
Thank you. I kinda always wondered how bike frames were made. This is really cool.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WpGsJKVhZY
Thank you. I kinda always wondered how bike frames were made. This is really cool.
It's rare to see a fork that's NOT aluminum. Even "carbon forks" are typically aluminum forks covered in carbon.
Source : I've shortened a lot of forks.
Source : I've shortened a lot of forks.
Eh... Most steerer tubes are aluminum for exactly the reason that you've shortened a lot of forks. In the field, Joe Mechanic is less likely to screw up an aluminum steerer vs. a carbon one.
As to what's rare, hell if I know. Aluminum forks are fairly common on low to mid-tier bikes and the cheap ones tend to suck.
As to what's rare, hell if I know. Aluminum forks are fairly common on low to mid-tier bikes and the cheap ones tend to suck.
Yes, I'm talking about a cheap frame with an aluminum fork.
The real solution to vibrations is a thoroughly damped bike, like this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N39uwTykTQk -- it features some next-generation thinking in its spring system.
I'm loyal to steel because of it's stiffness. It's almost twice a stiff as the next best material, and 20x as stiff as wood, according to the chart in the article. So I don't think wood is for me.
Is this assuming a racing bike or something?
I biked 20km back and forth to school daily for six years, and 80km road trips are not something out of the ordinary. I don't think I've ever noticed anything about vibration. But that is in the countryside of the Netherlands, with flat terrain and good roads.
The worst thing I ever had was stiff knees for a week after, from inflammations caused by biking in too high a gear for too long.
I biked 20km back and forth to school daily for six years, and 80km road trips are not something out of the ordinary. I don't think I've ever noticed anything about vibration. But that is in the countryside of the Netherlands, with flat terrain and good roads.
The worst thing I ever had was stiff knees for a week after, from inflammations caused by biking in too high a gear for too long.
I've done longer journeys that that on a steel frame touring bike with 1.5" tires and I didn't notice any problems with vibration. I think most people complaining about vibration are probably using excessively narrow tires.
>I find aluminum is worse than steel.
Try to do a blind test on yourself sometime, with the same tires and tire pressures.
I don't notice "vibration" at any distance unless its nasty chip seal at which point nothing will save you short of a mountain bike.
Try to do a blind test on yourself sometime, with the same tires and tire pressures.
I don't notice "vibration" at any distance unless its nasty chip seal at which point nothing will save you short of a mountain bike.
Great bikes! Ordered a frame form Materia bikes nearly 4 years ago. The bike is still in perfect condition and I am really enjoying it. If we are talking about bike stiffness and vibration damping - the front triangle (Top-tube, Bottom-tube, seat-tube) is made from solid wood, that is why I found the ride much smoother compared to my old carbon or aluminium bikes. - the rear triangle (seat-tube, chain-stay, seat-stay) is made from laminated wood so the rear end for the bike it is really stiff and hard, what is good for performance.
The best materials for damping vibration have low density and low stiffness. When coupled with the low vibration transfer speed, these properties determine how well a material damps vibration.
Based on the table below by "stiffness" they mean Young-modulus. None of these quantities describe damping of vibrations in a material. Also Young-modulus and density determine the longitudinal vibration transfer speed (this is what they list in the table). So saying "coupled with low vibration transfer speed" is a bit misleading.
Based on the table below by "stiffness" they mean Young-modulus. None of these quantities describe damping of vibrations in a material. Also Young-modulus and density determine the longitudinal vibration transfer speed (this is what they list in the table). So saying "coupled with low vibration transfer speed" is a bit misleading.
Yeah, I've still rarely seen honest discussions about what damping means in terms of structural materials.
If you made a bell out of cast iron instead of bronze, it would still ring, but it would ring for a shorter duration. This is because cast iron has higher internal damping than bronze. It is a viscoelastic effect, in that energy lost is proportional to the speed of movement (strain rate) within the material.
I imagine that most of the discussions about bike frame damping are not focused on this viscoelastic damping effect, but are more focused on the dynamic shock absorption effects that are a consequence of the mass and stiffness differences embodied in different frames. When you change frame material, you change so many other variables (tube wall thickness, etc) of the frame that a real apples-to-apples comparison is weird.
If you made a bell out of cast iron instead of bronze, it would still ring, but it would ring for a shorter duration. This is because cast iron has higher internal damping than bronze. It is a viscoelastic effect, in that energy lost is proportional to the speed of movement (strain rate) within the material.
I imagine that most of the discussions about bike frame damping are not focused on this viscoelastic damping effect, but are more focused on the dynamic shock absorption effects that are a consequence of the mass and stiffness differences embodied in different frames. When you change frame material, you change so many other variables (tube wall thickness, etc) of the frame that a real apples-to-apples comparison is weird.
Does this have to do with the "grainy" texture of cast iron? I would think that it has more surface-area-like to traverse, thus the vibrational waves attenuate super fast, as opposed to brass where they can carry?
This is one of the hardest topics to grasp in cycling, particularly since it is hard to find introductory but authoritative info applied to frame design (as opposed to general mechanical engineering books). And it is tough to map the objective material properties to the subjective feel of the ride quality.
Engineered wood is truly an amazing material.
While touring a newly-constructed home a few weeks ago, I saw what appeared to be floor joists constructed out of thin, cheap particle-board. It turns out that they're made of engineered wood, and are actually stronger than an equivalent sawed wood beam.
https://imgur.com/a/3AkZblF
While touring a newly-constructed home a few weeks ago, I saw what appeared to be floor joists constructed out of thin, cheap particle-board. It turns out that they're made of engineered wood, and are actually stronger than an equivalent sawed wood beam.
https://imgur.com/a/3AkZblF
Engineered wood and chipboard/ Oriented strand board (OSB) are a very different animal that particleboard or MDF. Each has their purpose. True particleboard is a very crappy material, best used for ballast and being cheap. MDF is smooth, stable, and machinable, and OSB provides a lot of tortional resilience.
For any home woodworkers, I don’t recommend working with OSB or particleboard. However, OSB is moderately waterproof, which neither of the others is.
For any home woodworkers, I don’t recommend working with OSB or particleboard. However, OSB is moderately waterproof, which neither of the others is.
In the 80s, in Tahoe, we built a tree-fort near my house. My dad was a general contractor and we had a lot of MDF available to use from his company...
Yeah - MDF and SNOW do not a happy tree house make.
The MDF sops up water like a sponge and deteriorates into its constituent particulate... which really sucked because our fort had two levels....
We built a house on the truckee river and there was a giant glue-lam beam that was used for the main truss of the roof. It had to be custom ordered from some manufacturer, and when I asked my dad why we were using that, he talked about how the glued laminate layers were stronger than a single material beam.
Yeah - MDF and SNOW do not a happy tree house make.
The MDF sops up water like a sponge and deteriorates into its constituent particulate... which really sucked because our fort had two levels....
We built a house on the truckee river and there was a giant glue-lam beam that was used for the main truss of the roof. It had to be custom ordered from some manufacturer, and when I asked my dad why we were using that, he talked about how the glued laminate layers were stronger than a single material beam.
A critical part of composite materials is that they are dimensionally stable. They don’t warp, elongate, or shrink, which is better than true wood. The glue and different grain orientations counteract the normal movement.
The grain patterns in OSB look a lot like those in parts made of forged carbon, and provide a similar purpose.
The grain patterns in OSB look a lot like those in parts made of forged carbon, and provide a similar purpose.
Not stronger (or weaker)- lighter, but more importantly MUCH more stable. Fiberboard (web) and plywood (flange) is stronger and heavier than wood of the same dimensions, but the biggest draw is that humidity doesn't make it swell or shrink. Since it's all glued in place, they also don't come with any bend or twist, and you can actually make flat floors without low or high spots.
The light weight means you can ship a huge number on the back of a truck, and they stack more efficiently than 2x8s or 2x10s.
The light weight means you can ship a huge number on the back of a truck, and they stack more efficiently than 2x8s or 2x10s.
It's not just something for small scale structures either. We've been working on the tech fitout for this recently: https://www.aurecongroup.com/projects/property/25-king.
Am I being paranoid if I worry about how long the glue will last? I mean I'm sure the chemists who created the stuff thought of this but I've never seen any articles on the how that is researched.
You're being paranoid. There is furniture around that's 100s of years old where the glue still hasn't failed.
Just because the right type of glue exists does not prove that this is the glue being used in these materials.
Glulam is getting quite popular here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glued_laminated_timber
Looking at the test results: 4-6mm permanent deformation when dropping it from 18-20cm? That doesn't seem very good, especially for a city ride with frequent curbs, small steps, road gaps, and a heavy rider like myself (92kg).
Does that mean if you drop something on the frame you'll get a little dent? Since it's wood? It's not a structural problem is it? Just like a cricket bat gets dents each time you hit a ball but it still works fine.
Here's a video of this test being performed on another frame: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCU7VT9fOpo
With a 20 cm drop the velocity is 4.95 m/s, or a pretty average bicycle pace (11 mph, 18 kph), ridden directly into a wall. All things considered, a 4-5 mm deformation isn't that bad. As long as it isn't splintering or splitting, which would be dangerous, the bike isn't going to see much forces in that specific direction. Rider weight doesn't matter because the rider will immediately be thrown over the handlebars.
In more realistic scenarios like hitting a curb or dropping the bike, the force will be much more vertical, which will give a several-times-higher mechanical advantage due to the fork rake. The tires will also absorb a lot of the shock loads.
In general wood doesn't lose strength from being beat up, no. Wood construction standards (which admittedly, I know only the basics about) usually assure you that dents and surface defects are not a big deal. The strength in most woods (particularly soft woods) comes from the fact that they're very fibrous and anisotropic, so when they're dented it usually moves the fibers around without actually breaking them.
With a 20 cm drop the velocity is 4.95 m/s, or a pretty average bicycle pace (11 mph, 18 kph), ridden directly into a wall. All things considered, a 4-5 mm deformation isn't that bad. As long as it isn't splintering or splitting, which would be dangerous, the bike isn't going to see much forces in that specific direction. Rider weight doesn't matter because the rider will immediately be thrown over the handlebars.
In more realistic scenarios like hitting a curb or dropping the bike, the force will be much more vertical, which will give a several-times-higher mechanical advantage due to the fork rake. The tires will also absorb a lot of the shock loads.
In general wood doesn't lose strength from being beat up, no. Wood construction standards (which admittedly, I know only the basics about) usually assure you that dents and surface defects are not a big deal. The strength in most woods (particularly soft woods) comes from the fact that they're very fibrous and anisotropic, so when they're dented it usually moves the fibers around without actually breaking them.
I would expect them to have problems over time with the wood-metal joints, since they respond to heat/humidity changes differently. This is often a problem with musical instruments.
Ride comfort (on a rigid bike) is primarily a function of the tyres (size/inflation/construction).
A bike with cheap 23c tyres at 150psi will rattle the fillings out of your teeth.
The same bike with decent 25c or 28c tyres at e.g. 50-70psi (depending on rider weight) can float along with a magic carpet like ride.
A bike with cheap 23c tyres at 150psi will rattle the fillings out of your teeth.
The same bike with decent 25c or 28c tyres at e.g. 50-70psi (depending on rider weight) can float along with a magic carpet like ride.
Why call those 23c tyres "cheap"? Why mention price at all? Ride comfort is a function of tyre size, not tyre price. You can buy very "exclusive" expensive 23c tyres, pump them up to 7 atm. and have just as hard a ride as the person who just overtook you on his "cheap" 23c tyres.
That "magic carpet" ride does come at a price but it is not monetary: the softer the tyre, the more resistance and with that the slower the ride.
That "magic carpet" ride does come at a price but it is not monetary: the softer the tyre, the more resistance and with that the slower the ride.
> That "magic carpet" ride does come at a price but it is not monetary: the softer the tyre, the more resistance and with that the slower the ride.
Unless you're riding on a velodrome, pumping your tyres up to 120+psi doesn't decrease rolling resistance, infact the the opposite is true. If the tyre can deform around small bumps it rolls much more easily. This is why very expensive and fast tyres have casings with a high thread count (sometimes even made of silk) so they are more supple.
Unless you're riding on a velodrome, pumping your tyres up to 120+psi doesn't decrease rolling resistance, infact the the opposite is true. If the tyre can deform around small bumps it rolls much more easily. This is why very expensive and fast tyres have casings with a high thread count (sometimes even made of silk) so they are more supple.
Fast Fitness produced a little spreadsheet to calculate optimal pressure based on tyre width, bike+rider weight and a very granular assessment of surface.[1]
Something else to take into account is the aerodynamic trade off as tyre width grows. I think I read somewhere that 25mm is roughly the sweet spot. What you gain in lower rolling resistance by going up to 28mm you loose in drag. That's a bit anecdotal (sorry) but I have heard it mentioned in a couple of places. The best source I could come up with was from Zipp's web site.[2]
Of course that might well be worth it to be more comfortable if it means you can keep your body in a more aero position as that will dwarf any loss from the tyres (again a guess).
Hopefully there's some numbers somewhere to back that up. Maybe Bicycle Quarterly or Tour Magazine might be a good bet for anyone interested.
Also https://www.bicyclerollingresistance.com/ is always very interesting ...assuming you obsess over bike tyres as I'm sure everyone does. :P
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Clk_LLBYFzA [2] https://zipp.com/support/faq/faq.php
Something else to take into account is the aerodynamic trade off as tyre width grows. I think I read somewhere that 25mm is roughly the sweet spot. What you gain in lower rolling resistance by going up to 28mm you loose in drag. That's a bit anecdotal (sorry) but I have heard it mentioned in a couple of places. The best source I could come up with was from Zipp's web site.[2]
Of course that might well be worth it to be more comfortable if it means you can keep your body in a more aero position as that will dwarf any loss from the tyres (again a guess).
Hopefully there's some numbers somewhere to back that up. Maybe Bicycle Quarterly or Tour Magazine might be a good bet for anyone interested.
Also https://www.bicyclerollingresistance.com/ is always very interesting ...assuming you obsess over bike tyres as I'm sure everyone does. :P
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Clk_LLBYFzA [2] https://zipp.com/support/faq/faq.php
It makes a big difference if you ride on asphalt or similarly flat surfaces, which many bike commuters do.
I am not suggesting that all 23c tyres are cheap, but that tyre quality (which comes at a cost) as well as size has an important part to play in comfort.
My 23c handmade FMB tubulars (definitely not cheap) are a much nicer ride than cheaper tyres.
Rolling resistance is far more complicated, on anything other than a wooden velodrome, the road surface actually means that there is a sweat-spot in terms of pressure - too low and rolling resistance will be high, as you say, this decreases up to a point at which the effects of the microbumps in the road start to cause energy losses through hysteresis and eventually the tyre bouncing over tiny bumps.
For a 23c tyre and a 70kg rider the optimum tyre pressure is actually typically in the 80-90psi range (5.5-6ATM) although again this is dependant on tyre quality, an expensive tubular tyre with very supple silk sidewalls can be run at higher pressure than a touring tyre with tough reinforced sidewalls.
My 23c handmade FMB tubulars (definitely not cheap) are a much nicer ride than cheaper tyres.
Rolling resistance is far more complicated, on anything other than a wooden velodrome, the road surface actually means that there is a sweat-spot in terms of pressure - too low and rolling resistance will be high, as you say, this decreases up to a point at which the effects of the microbumps in the road start to cause energy losses through hysteresis and eventually the tyre bouncing over tiny bumps.
For a 23c tyre and a 70kg rider the optimum tyre pressure is actually typically in the 80-90psi range (5.5-6ATM) although again this is dependant on tyre quality, an expensive tubular tyre with very supple silk sidewalls can be run at higher pressure than a touring tyre with tough reinforced sidewalls.
I don't know how much you ride and in which conditions so I can't comment on the choice of your un-cheap 23c handmade FMB tubulars. What I do know is that those would not last very long for me, handmade magic pixie dust notwithstanding. I ride year-long through the Swedish countryside with temperatures ranging from a maximum of 37°C to -25°C, on roads which vary from reasonable to hard to find on map and landscape. I mostly ride a steel-framed 24-speed with 47-622 knobbly tyres (in other words "fairly fat tyres on 28" rims) at around 5 atm. as those give both speed as well as traction. Microbumps and similar concerns don't apply here, the bike is meant to take me from A to B no matter how many picobumps I encounter. Still I average around 30 km/h on the flat, easily reach 50 km/h downhill.
In other words, I use my bike as I use my motorbike: as a form of transport. Maybe that takes a different approach, maybe not, as said I don't know how you use your bike. What I do know is that I generally don't hold with the 'cultures' which form around specific areas, no matter whether it is biking (silk-walled handmade tyres adapted to your personal preference), audio (audiophile-grade left-turning 99.999999% oxygen-free oriented-strand meteoric copper power cables), food (organic free-range lettuce grown on virgin soil from heritage seeds fertilised with certified manure from Swiss highland cattle) and other such things.
In other words, I use my bike as I use my motorbike: as a form of transport. Maybe that takes a different approach, maybe not, as said I don't know how you use your bike. What I do know is that I generally don't hold with the 'cultures' which form around specific areas, no matter whether it is biking (silk-walled handmade tyres adapted to your personal preference), audio (audiophile-grade left-turning 99.999999% oxygen-free oriented-strand meteoric copper power cables), food (organic free-range lettuce grown on virgin soil from heritage seeds fertilised with certified manure from Swiss highland cattle) and other such things.
[deleted]
>Ride comfort is a function of tyre size
And tire construction. Though price likely does not correlate well with how supple the tire construction is.
And tire construction. Though price likely does not correlate well with how supple the tire construction is.
Yup; I prefer the hard ride and not to feel like I'm peddling a tractor.
Very true - but a great seat post and saddle can help - I stuck a carbon seat post on my alu bike and it was amazing, and even on my full carbon I moved to a carbon seatpost and carbon (unpadded) saddle - soaks up the vibration even though I have the tires at 100psi. People often comment on the lack of padding on the saddle, but with a nice pair of bib shorts it is fine. And 250g for the seatpost and saddle ;)
To clarify - vibration that it best dulls is 'road buzz' which you can really get on a alu bike, esp with high pressure tires. A carbon seatpost and seat can be as little as £50 for both - I got my seat post from wiggle and seat from china - happy with both - and recommend to all my friends.
Yes this will have little impact on 'bumps' - though the saddle def soaks some of them up.
I posted this to refute that 'only' tires have an impact on ride - frame, wheels, seat post, saddle, bars and bar padding, shorts etc can all have a positive impact on ride - and allow you to ride at a high tire pressure and get all the benefit of lower rolling resistance.
To clarify - vibration that it best dulls is 'road buzz' which you can really get on a alu bike, esp with high pressure tires. A carbon seatpost and seat can be as little as £50 for both - I got my seat post from wiggle and seat from china - happy with both - and recommend to all my friends.
Yes this will have little impact on 'bumps' - though the saddle def soaks some of them up.
I posted this to refute that 'only' tires have an impact on ride - frame, wheels, seat post, saddle, bars and bar padding, shorts etc can all have a positive impact on ride - and allow you to ride at a high tire pressure and get all the benefit of lower rolling resistance.
True enough, but the more magic your carpet is, the more likely you are to get flats.
Eh, this is another area where construction is a factor. Flats due to low psi are usually pinch flats, which is a clincher issue. If you can bear the expense and inconvenience of running tubulars, pinch flats are no longer a concern.
I guess you could try tubeless as an alternative to tubulars too. They also tend to offer lower rolling resistance than tubs.[1]
I’ve got tubs on my TT bike but for general summer riding I like latex tubes in clinchers. Latex seems to be more resistant to pinch flats as long you take care fitting them. Spare tubes are butyl but not had to fix a latex puncture in the last 2 years.
(Winter and commute bikes are butyl for convenience)
[1] https://www.bicyclerollingresistance.com/
I’ve got tubs on my TT bike but for general summer riding I like latex tubes in clinchers. Latex seems to be more resistant to pinch flats as long you take care fitting them. Spare tubes are butyl but not had to fix a latex puncture in the last 2 years.
(Winter and commute bikes are butyl for convenience)
[1] https://www.bicyclerollingresistance.com/
...but tubular tyres at too low a pressure tend to separate from the rim in interesting ways - hope you brought tape or glue to stick them back in place.
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.
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.
You 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".
I 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.
Of course that would make wooden bikes a matter of taste, and not superior by any stretch of the imagination.
> 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.
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.
Of 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.
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.
It'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...
I didn't say anything about an alternative definition of practicality. I said that practicality might not be as important for some people.
How impractical can a bike be if it gets the job done? Or did you mean in some not utilitarian context?
They get the job done, but require much more energy to do it. Some bikes are more about looks than practicality.
Agree 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.
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.
>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.
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.
Interesting idea. Unconscionable price.
I don't think you could justify spending that amount of money on a bike unless it is one of your life's deepest passions. Which seems rare.
Does the quality of bikes really change that much when you go up the price range, for amateur users?
I don't think you could justify spending that amount of money on a bike unless it is one of your life's deepest passions. Which seems rare.
Does the quality of bikes really change that much when you go up the price range, for amateur users?
The price drives the sales volume in a predictable way, so it's a rather self limiting problem.
But the "amateur using pro gear" is widespread, not just in cycling. And what's acceptable is a matter of culture. I've noticed that a person riding a $4k bike will get criticized by someone who drives a $40k car, with no irony.
I'm an amateur musician, but I play a professional quality instrument. It really comes down to the sheer enjoyment of it. My instrument won't get me into the Chicago Symphony, but it sounds nice in my living room. And it still cost less than many pleasures that people afford themselves.
At first glance, the wooden bike has to be for someone who is interested in the aesthetics and novelty of it.
Disclaimer: I ride a bike that I assembled from mostly spare parts for less than $100.
But the "amateur using pro gear" is widespread, not just in cycling. And what's acceptable is a matter of culture. I've noticed that a person riding a $4k bike will get criticized by someone who drives a $40k car, with no irony.
I'm an amateur musician, but I play a professional quality instrument. It really comes down to the sheer enjoyment of it. My instrument won't get me into the Chicago Symphony, but it sounds nice in my living room. And it still cost less than many pleasures that people afford themselves.
At first glance, the wooden bike has to be for someone who is interested in the aesthetics and novelty of it.
Disclaimer: I ride a bike that I assembled from mostly spare parts for less than $100.
€3000 is nowhere near the ceiling for expensive bikes, even for amateurs. I know plenty of people that have multiple bikes in that range and beyond.
If you want specific solutions things often get expensive. And yes there is a world of differens from a €1000 bike to one that costs €4000.
If you want specific solutions things often get expensive. And yes there is a world of differens from a €1000 bike to one that costs €4000.
It's also easy to spend quite a bit extra on a bike once you have it. You almost always need to replace the saddle and pedals, so that's about $200. You get a bike fit and decide you want to change your handlebars and stem, so there's another $200. A year or two later, you want to upgrade to a set of lighter wheels, and that's $500 or more, easily.
Within the world of go-fast or go-far riding, yeah, they do, with real measurable changes and gains up through probably $6-7.5K USD.
For most riders, going above an entry level carbon fiber bike with Shimano 105 components and alloy rims is probably overkill. That price point is between $1500 and $2500US, depending on manufacturer and other options.
If you're a larger rider, getting a better grade of carbon frame is worth it. I'm about 98kg, so I took that option. My bike was $3500US, but still with alloy rims.
Wheels matter a LOT. The next step up in the Specialized line that year was exactly the same in all respects except wheels (carbon, aero) and price ($5,000US).
The other thing you see in nicer enthusiast bikes is electronic shifting. This adds, say, $800 to $1500 to the price vs. an equivalent cable-pull bike. It sounds insane, but it's really quite nice -- and never goes out of adjustment.
Disc brakes are taking over as well, but still command a slight premium. I don't have them because I live in a flat place, but if I lived in northern California or Colorado, they'd be a no-brainer -- they work WAY better on long descents or in the wet.
Oh, and if you want titanium instead of carbon, well, the whole game STARTS much higher. The most common ti frames I see are from a company called Moots; entry level for the frame alone is about $4000US -- more than my bike was originally.
Obviously, I don't see ti bikes except under fairly well-heeled riders MOST of the time (there are exceptions) -- but I see lots of normal middle class folks on $2500-$4000 (retail) bikes. That's kind of the default in the groups I ride in. Going higher is possible, but of limited utility. Going lower means you have a bit less fun, honestly. They didn't all pay full price or buy new, but that's the grade of bike around me on most rides.
For most riders, going above an entry level carbon fiber bike with Shimano 105 components and alloy rims is probably overkill. That price point is between $1500 and $2500US, depending on manufacturer and other options.
If you're a larger rider, getting a better grade of carbon frame is worth it. I'm about 98kg, so I took that option. My bike was $3500US, but still with alloy rims.
Wheels matter a LOT. The next step up in the Specialized line that year was exactly the same in all respects except wheels (carbon, aero) and price ($5,000US).
The other thing you see in nicer enthusiast bikes is electronic shifting. This adds, say, $800 to $1500 to the price vs. an equivalent cable-pull bike. It sounds insane, but it's really quite nice -- and never goes out of adjustment.
Disc brakes are taking over as well, but still command a slight premium. I don't have them because I live in a flat place, but if I lived in northern California or Colorado, they'd be a no-brainer -- they work WAY better on long descents or in the wet.
Oh, and if you want titanium instead of carbon, well, the whole game STARTS much higher. The most common ti frames I see are from a company called Moots; entry level for the frame alone is about $4000US -- more than my bike was originally.
Obviously, I don't see ti bikes except under fairly well-heeled riders MOST of the time (there are exceptions) -- but I see lots of normal middle class folks on $2500-$4000 (retail) bikes. That's kind of the default in the groups I ride in. Going higher is possible, but of limited utility. Going lower means you have a bit less fun, honestly. They didn't all pay full price or buy new, but that's the grade of bike around me on most rides.
> For most riders, going above an entry level carbon fiber bike with Shimano 105 components and alloy rims is probably overkill
Even the Tiagra line is very good these days. Aside from the 11th cog on the 105's, I'd say that they're pretty even in terms of performance. Especially in regards to shifting.
Even the Tiagra line is very good these days. Aside from the 11th cog on the 105's, I'd say that they're pretty even in terms of performance. Especially in regards to shifting.
Really? I'd definitely disagree. I find the 105 materially nicer in feel, plus obviously having the 11 is nice, too.
The maxim in the cycling community where I live is that 105 is fine, but Ultegra is worth it if you can afford it, and Dura Ace is just showing off. I think that's pretty accurate.
(Of course, it probably needs updating for Di2/eTap...)
The maxim in the cycling community where I live is that 105 is fine, but Ultegra is worth it if you can afford it, and Dura Ace is just showing off. I think that's pretty accurate.
(Of course, it probably needs updating for Di2/eTap...)
I was fortunate to be sold a carbon and titanium bike at cost many years ago. It’s an amazing machine, and I truly love it, because nothing I’ve ridden since in aluminum or steel can compare. If I had $5k to drop on a new Specializes Carbon with RED, hell yeah id do it! It’s like: Once you’ve driven a Ferrari, the only thing you want to do is drive a Ferrari.
It's expensive, but not unreasonable given the quality of the parts used. Their cheapest bike is 2500 euros, or 1600 on sale at the moment. If you were to buy all of parts separately, other than the frame and fork, it would be about 1000 euros.
What's really making a difference is proper assembly and setup. Then, as long the bike's made out of halfway decent materials and is the right size for you it's going to be a pleasure to ride.
It is still far far cheaper than a car. If a bike is your main mode of transportation and you're not super-poor, and this bike gives you joy every day, I'd say go for it.
Like anything there are diminishing returns, the difference between a £250 and £500 bike is greater than between a £500 and £5000 bike.
> Which seems rare.
I don't think you've spent a lot of time around bikers!
I don't think you've spent a lot of time around bikers!
the cervelo p5x time trial bicycle starts from $8k for “just” the frame:
https://www.cervelo.com/p5x
“full spec” is $16k.
“full spec” is $16k.
There is a bike messenger in NYC who rides a PX5...
At least he can get a tax deduction from it, I guess?
Plenty of people spend a LOT more than that on bikes
What proportion precisely, and in which locality?
They don't mention that wood is quite a bit heavier than other materials. Their road bike frames weight 2.5kg, where modern (and much cheaper) carbon fiber frames come in below 1kg.
Yes, every time I've seen an article on wooden bikes I've looked and they are crazily expensive while being ridiculously heavy. I also tend to think they're ugly.
Hopefully they never have a fire sale.
I think they look cool and everything, but it still doesn't seem very practical for real use. Maybe if you are just occasionally cruising around on a nice day. Most people don't do very well with bike maintenance and I assume this would be a major issue with a bike like this.
[deleted]
It’s helpful to understand that, like carbon fiber, it’s all in the epoxy resins. That’s where the strength and durability ultimately come from.
I wonder if wooden bikes bring any safety concerns in the event of a crash, since when wood breaks it can become reasonably sharp, like a spear.
I doubt the risk is any worse than with carbon fiber. http://www.bustedcarbon.com/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTfu0hjVtzE
Carbon bike disintegrates at 107 MPH
Carbon bike disintegrates at 107 MPH
Aluminum framed bikes do that, old heavy steel would bend but aluminum tends to break all at once.
Though it's worth pointing out that you really have to be doing something stupid to see this sort of rare effect.
Can't be any worse than carbon fiber...
Website seems down at the moment. This still works: https://web.archive.org/web/20181121111648/https://materiabi...
I don't understand the market for bicycles in the thousands of euro price range. Bikes get stolen often enough for me to never be relaxed leaving such a bike outside a shop or caffe or such. If you can't leave the bike anywhere, it's almost useless, except perhaps as a virtue signalling device.
Expensive bikes aren't for leaving around - they are for riding/racing. It is common to have a "beater" bike for cafe/shop/pub outings where its going to be locked up outside.
I live in the Netherlands and have not had my bike stolen in 25 years. Just use a good lock and only park in secured parking locations with gated access and cameras.
And don't buy a bike without knowing the full history and paperwork, otherwise you are shooting yourself in the foot by supporting criminals and raising your chance of having your bike stolen in the future.
And don't buy a bike without knowing the full history and paperwork, otherwise you are shooting yourself in the foot by supporting criminals and raising your chance of having your bike stolen in the future.
I also live in the Netherlands, and if I restricted myself to only parking in secured parking locations with gated access and cameras, I would only be able to cycle from my office... to my office.
This (obviously) precludes you from cycling anywhere you might want to go (home, the shops, your friends houses, a restaurant, a bar, a cafe).
If you restrict yourself to parking in locations with cameras (e.g. stations), your bike will still probably get stolen, especially if it is expensive (I know people who have had their bikes stolen from station bike parks with cameras). I myself had the front wheel stolen from my bike that was parked between 3 CCTV cameras, next to a busy metro station, next to a shop with a security guard, and across the street from the main police station in the city.
This (obviously) precludes you from cycling anywhere you might want to go (home, the shops, your friends houses, a restaurant, a bar, a cafe).
If you restrict yourself to parking in locations with cameras (e.g. stations), your bike will still probably get stolen, especially if it is expensive (I know people who have had their bikes stolen from station bike parks with cameras). I myself had the front wheel stolen from my bike that was parked between 3 CCTV cameras, next to a busy metro station, next to a shop with a security guard, and across the street from the main police station in the city.
If I go to a bar or shop I will park my bike in a nearby secured location and walk the last couple of minutes. At home I put the bike in a locked brick shed.
> I live in the Netherlands and have not had my bike stolen in 25 years. Just use a good lock and only park in secured parking locations with gated access and cameras.
That works well as long as you only want to ride between places with secured parking locations with gated access and cameras.
In the US I have noticed a bit of a disconnect between bike hobbyists (put your bike in your car and drive to the place you want to ride) and people whose bike is their primary mode of transportation. I'm sure it's different in the Netherlands, but a lot of places here you're lucky to find a single bike rack near your destination. "Secured parking locations" don't exist outside of the occasional upscale apartment complex.
That works well as long as you only want to ride between places with secured parking locations with gated access and cameras.
In the US I have noticed a bit of a disconnect between bike hobbyists (put your bike in your car and drive to the place you want to ride) and people whose bike is their primary mode of transportation. I'm sure it's different in the Netherlands, but a lot of places here you're lucky to find a single bike rack near your destination. "Secured parking locations" don't exist outside of the occasional upscale apartment complex.
I have a friend from the Netherlands and his bike was stolen, despite having a lock on it, the very first week he was in the US. He was completely dumbfounded, the idea of a bike getting stolen was just ridiculous for him, growing up in a such a high median income, highly developed country. And when he was in the US he was staying on campus at a presigious University. As far as my + his anecdotal evidence goes, the Netherlands is just much much safer in terms of not getting your bike stolen.
> Just use a good lock and only park in secured parking locations with gated access and cameras.
I can sadly say from experience that this does not help when you live in student housing.
Also, one lock? You've been lucky. Two locks of different brands is a better bet (junkies tend to specialize in unlocking one particular type quickly)
I can sadly say from experience that this does not help when you live in student housing.
Also, one lock? You've been lucky. Two locks of different brands is a better bet (junkies tend to specialize in unlocking one particular type quickly)
Huh? I have a £2k bike. Had it years. Never leave it in public. Doesnt stop me commuting on it to work every day or taking it out for rides at the weekend.
I think it's quite reasonable. My bike is my only vehicle and I don't own a car. It's actually the fastest way to commute in my larger city in Germany.
On the other hand I find it incomprehensible how someone would spent more than 10K for a car that for me seems to offer only very marginal advantages day-to-day. For vacations cars are nice, but then I can just rent one or go by train/plane too.
On the other hand I find it incomprehensible how someone would spent more than 10K for a car that for me seems to offer only very marginal advantages day-to-day. For vacations cars are nice, but then I can just rent one or go by train/plane too.
If you trust your bike won't get stolen in your home or your place of work that's a pretty big use case that isn't "virture signaling".
I largely agree - though my 'good bike' is currently worth around £1500 - though if I tried to sell it now it would be worth closer to £700.
Still, I either go on a 50 mile type ride where I'll not be stopping until I return to base, a local training ride (similar), a cafe tour - where I'll be able to sit either where I can see the bike or right next to it, or I just leave it at home and take my 'rough bike' (the comedy but that the rough bike is actually also worth a whack - but I've just made it look terrible).
Moving to riding a £1500 from a £200 is like night and day - the first time I rode a full carbon it was amazing, even though the gains were marginal, and comfort and ride were outstanding.
I'd not tried them, but seeing friends with £9k or more bikes, I can imagine that yes they do offer marginal gains, and other things that make the ride better - is it 'worth it? Who knows - but if you have the money and a passion for your hobby, then why not? I'm sure to my parents they couldn't understand why someone would want a £1k phone or ipad when theirs work perfectly for their needs.
Still, I either go on a 50 mile type ride where I'll not be stopping until I return to base, a local training ride (similar), a cafe tour - where I'll be able to sit either where I can see the bike or right next to it, or I just leave it at home and take my 'rough bike' (the comedy but that the rough bike is actually also worth a whack - but I've just made it look terrible).
Moving to riding a £1500 from a £200 is like night and day - the first time I rode a full carbon it was amazing, even though the gains were marginal, and comfort and ride were outstanding.
I'd not tried them, but seeing friends with £9k or more bikes, I can imagine that yes they do offer marginal gains, and other things that make the ride better - is it 'worth it? Who knows - but if you have the money and a passion for your hobby, then why not? I'm sure to my parents they couldn't understand why someone would want a £1k phone or ipad when theirs work perfectly for their needs.
Unless you are a legit elite top 1% rider, a $10k bike offers nothing that a nicely spec'd $2k bike doesn't offer.
I've been a motorcycle marshal for big triathlon races (Ironman and others) over the last few years. Aside from the elites who are basically all on the high-dollar bikes, the value of the bike seems to be a near-insignificant factor in the overall performance equation.
It's pretty easy to get a bike that price if you use decent, brand name components rather than cheap generic components. And if you ride a lot, it's worth it to spend more and get a bike you enjoy riding.
And with a good lock, I don't really worry about theft.
And with a good lock, I don't really worry about theft.
What lock do you use?
I use the Kryptonite New York Fuhgettaboudit Mini. It's heavy, but small and light enough so I can fit it in-between my back and side belt loops.
I've always had tons of bikes stolen, until I got a light cargo bike. I often only use the ring lock, yet somehow nobody seems to want to steal it. My son's bike got stolen twice over the past year right in front of our house (we park it indoors now), but nobody ever touches my cargo bike. It's the most expensive bike I've ever had.
Part of the market will be bike enthusiasts with disposable income who are attracted to the novelty of a wooden frame. The frames are beautiful. Time will tell whether that market is big enough to support a business.
On a related note, I see Renovo Hardwood Bicycles shut down earlier this year.
On a related note, I see Renovo Hardwood Bicycles shut down earlier this year.
I use my expensive bike for training/exercise not for commuting. Not too hard to understand.
I have a bike that I term "ride-able art" Its not for racing, and while its not terribly expensive, I love it, care for it and don't want it stolen.
I have had several bikes stolen from me - its such a horrible feeling when that happens.
I have had several bikes stolen from me - its such a horrible feeling when that happens.
I have secured access bike rooms available to me at work and I have room in my elevator building apartment for a bike. Plus, I can easily go do a long fitness ride without having to leave the bike anywhere.
For everything else, there's Citibike.
For everything else, there's Citibike.
Or as sports equipment.
> virtue signalling device.
Perhaps you mean status signal? I don’t think having a bike is rare enough in Europe to be considered virtue signaling anymore.
Perhaps you mean status signal? I don’t think having a bike is rare enough in Europe to be considered virtue signaling anymore.
Probably the most over- + mis-used phrase on HN aside from orthogonal, our HN gang-signaling word.
I wish someone invented and actually sold tires which can't go flat. I don't mind if it makes the bike somewhat harder to ride. For short-distance trips (intra-city) this should be no problem, and could perhaps even save me a visit to the gym.
Schwalbe has such a tire. It‘s filled with some sort of foam:
https://www.schwalbe.com/airless-system/index.php/home.html
Thanks, this will be my next tire :)
Keep in mind that this will change the feeling of the bike quite drastically.
When you hit a bump with an airtyre, the entire wheel responds to absorb the shock,
but with foam tyres that doesn't happen (only the part of the tyre right above where you hit will contract)
tires that can't go flat are also extremely terrible.
>. I don't mind if it makes the bike somewhat harder to ride.
You think that because you don't realize how much harder it is. Like it takes significantly more power, turns much worse, and is much less comfortable.
Solid rubber tires exist though you are welcome to try!
You think that because you don't realize how much harder it is. Like it takes significantly more power, turns much worse, and is much less comfortable.
Solid rubber tires exist though you are welcome to try!
I don't know where you live obviously, but in the US you can get two brands of very puncture-resistant tires: Gatorskins, made by Continental, and Armadilloskins, made by Specialized.
I used the latter almost exclusively for years on thousands of miles of urban rides in Houston, and almost NEVER got a flat. I finally switched to a softer more supple tire when I bought some new wheels this summer, and they are WAY more comfortable and a bit faster, but I've had two flats since I bought the damn things.
It's all a tradeoff.
I used the latter almost exclusively for years on thousands of miles of urban rides in Houston, and almost NEVER got a flat. I finally switched to a softer more supple tire when I bought some new wheels this summer, and they are WAY more comfortable and a bit faster, but I've had two flats since I bought the damn things.
It's all a tradeoff.
tubeless tires?
“Without an inner tube, you can run lower tyre pressures without the fear of a pinch flat, meaning a more comfortable ride with more grip. And if anything sharp does puncture the tyre, the liquid sealant inside will quickly fill any holes”
https://www.bikeradar.com/gear/article/best-road-bike-tyres-...
“Without an inner tube, you can run lower tyre pressures without the fear of a pinch flat, meaning a more comfortable ride with more grip. And if anything sharp does puncture the tyre, the liquid sealant inside will quickly fill any holes”
https://www.bikeradar.com/gear/article/best-road-bike-tyres-...
I've generally noticed that wider tires make a big difference. For instance, I bought a road bike with 23mm wide tires and it was just unusable, it would get flats every other ride.
Over the past 5-10 years there's been a trend towards wider rims, thankfully. Before that, a lot of road bike frames couldn't even FIT a wheel over 25mm wide!
Over the past 5-10 years there's been a trend towards wider rims, thankfully. Before that, a lot of road bike frames couldn't even FIT a wheel over 25mm wide!
I went from 23mm tires to 32mm, and my first ride I felt like I was floating on clouds. Feels so smooth in comparison.
I am using PVC liners "Stop Flats 2" that go inside the tire. Due to broken glass everywhere I went flat often before, but never since. It is a compromise, makes the wheel heavier but it is cheap and won't affect feeling much.
Is it really an issue? Have you tried tires with a decent puncture resistant layer? I am using the cheapest Schwalbe's Plus tires and commute year-round in very harsh urban conditions, when it comes to glass shards and whatnot.
The shared bikes around here have solid rubber tires. I'm not sure it's a good tradeoff though.
Mobike bikes have thin tires filled with more rubber
Yes, and they are horrible to ride on.
Tubeless tyres have been a thing for a few years now.
tubeless tires can go flat as easily as tires with tubes to close approximation. (there is some reduced chance of pinch flats but some increased chance of burping)
tubeless tires are commonly used along with sealant, which helps, but you can put sealant in a tire with tubes as well.
tubeless tires are commonly used along with sealant, which helps, but you can put sealant in a tire with tubes as well.
[deleted]
I just don't buy this. At all. Why don't we see the Tour de France peloton rolling through on wooden bikes? They can afford the best of the best.
1. Weight, while it is lighter per unit than CFRP, you need more of it to sustain the same rigidity making it heavier. You actually need very little CFRP for a bike and mostly solid or near-solid wooden panels. Quite some of the minimum weight of professional bikes is additional equipment and the gearing mechanism. (min weight is a bit less than 7kg)
2. Stiffness. While not good for every day usage, it is good if you want to go fast. All energy absorbed is wasted as heat or vibrations (e.g. sound).
2. Stiffness. While not good for every day usage, it is good if you want to go fast. All energy absorbed is wasted as heat or vibrations (e.g. sound).
A lot of the post is about comfort and durability. If you're doing the Tour de France then your most important concern by far is pure performance. Everything else is secondary.
You're not riding the Tour de France when you're commuting to work or riding as a hobby.
You're not riding the Tour de France when you're commuting to work or riding as a hobby.
They want high frame stiffness to minimize loss of power to flexing.
I feel you though. I would rather improve ride smoothness with larger tires, lower tire pressure, lesser tension of spokes, different sadle, etc, than riding on a wooden bike.
I don't buy it either.
Although, elite racers are ultra-fit people in their teens to twenties and are quite a different demographic than the typical high-end bicycle consumer-- which is males in their 40's and older with some disposable income and a bit of a mid-life crisis going on (I'm one).
The wooden bike idea comes around every once in a while, the last one I remember was bamboo. I think it makes a viable frame material but they're very much "a look" rather than some kind special material that provides any specific "ride quality".
It is totally possible to have a "quality ride" with any frame material you want: steel, carbon-fiber, titanium, aluminum or wood.
When it comes to a "quality ride" people underestimate the importance of three things: 1. Their own fitness, 2. The fit/geometry of the bike and 3. The most simple thing of all, tire selection.
Although, elite racers are ultra-fit people in their teens to twenties and are quite a different demographic than the typical high-end bicycle consumer-- which is males in their 40's and older with some disposable income and a bit of a mid-life crisis going on (I'm one).
The wooden bike idea comes around every once in a while, the last one I remember was bamboo. I think it makes a viable frame material but they're very much "a look" rather than some kind special material that provides any specific "ride quality".
It is totally possible to have a "quality ride" with any frame material you want: steel, carbon-fiber, titanium, aluminum or wood.
When it comes to a "quality ride" people underestimate the importance of three things: 1. Their own fitness, 2. The fit/geometry of the bike and 3. The most simple thing of all, tire selection.
They're not talking about vibration damping, they're talking about attenuating impulses.
To dampen vibrations as soon as possible, you want very high stiffness.
To dampen vibrations as soon as possible, you want very high stiffness.
Riders can certainly be over-concerned about weight, but uh, it is pretty important. How much to these expensive beasts weigh?
"The best bike is the one you ride."
How durable are wooden bikes?
They give 5 year warranty which seems like a lot, but one of the bigger bike manufacturers in the Netherlands gives 10 years[0] on (metal) bikes. So my guess is they are less durable.
[0] https://www.gazelle.nl/service/garantie
[0] https://www.gazelle.nl/service/garantie
5 year warranty on bike frames is pretty standard. I've shopped around after my aluminium frame broke after 6 years and nearly all manufacturers offered 5 years.
For comparison, I ride two steel frames from 1982 and 1985, and own a Schwinn from 1963. All have shown signs of use and age, cosmetically, but are still fully functional and safe.
That's not to suggest a wooden frame is less durable, but just an anecdotal calibration of what my expectations are.
That's not to suggest a wooden frame is less durable, but just an anecdotal calibration of what my expectations are.
Pretty durable. Better than carbon and can compete with aluminium – since the build is filled.
> Better than carbon
[citation needed]
[citation needed]
Carbon bikes are made from hollow tubes, hollow tubes can buckle / collapse, plus carbon bikes are designed for lightness, not sturdiness. Wood can take a beating, but is a lot heavier.
Hollowness is nonsensical argument. Hollow tubes maximize strength per weight
The wooden bikes mentioned are made from hollow tubes too. "Materia Bikes frames are hollow and lightweight"
Carbon bikes are made for stiffness and ride quality - you can make equally light bikes with Alu / Ti.
I must admit that they look very nice!
Did yer hear about the Wooden Engine?
It wouldn't go.
It wouldn't go.
Server error
I think bikes will become a niche sports product, replaced by E-Scooters for basic transportation around town, and autonomous cars/minibuses for anything longer.
You don't get any exercise with an e-scooter, and personally I go a fair bit faster than most of them on my bike. Cycling to the work saves me time on my commute and the need not to go to a gym. My commuting bike (a very basic mountain bike, cost < 300 euros) has paid for itself multiple times over in saved money on public transport. Its an efficient lifesytle choice for me.
I can't understand why so few people cycle.
I can't understand why so few people cycle.
> I can't understand why so few people cycle.
Rain, snow, hills, sweat, cargo, parking, theft, [getting hit by] cars, maintenance.
I have two bicycles, and I'm considering a bikeshare subscription, because hauling them up and down three floors and maneuvering them around a tiny apartment is annoying.
Unrelated, but I was hit by a car on bike to work day.
Rain, snow, hills, sweat, cargo, parking, theft, [getting hit by] cars, maintenance.
I have two bicycles, and I'm considering a bikeshare subscription, because hauling them up and down three floors and maneuvering them around a tiny apartment is annoying.
Unrelated, but I was hit by a car on bike to work day.
There's more to a bike than just pure transport. There's the fact that you exercise at the same time as being one of the fastest ways around.
Yep, got back into cycling to work this summer by siging up for one of the bike sharing programs. Good lifehack if like me you are obviously in need of some exercise but can't really be bothered to go to a gym. Also saving a ton on transport tickets. I wouldn't claim it is faster but definitely more relaxing.
I think you're entirely wrong. You've got to realize how many people love crushing it on a road bike and getting all the fun and fitness that come along with that.
Batteries are still too inconvenient and costly. I still regularly ride a wonderful steel bike that's older than myself (a top of the line koga miyata). So with a battery lifetime of the order of ~1000 charge cycles, if you take into considerations the costs of regularly replacing the battery, then ebikes (and e-scooters) are in a different price segment altogether.
Yes, this is what makes me sceptical about the trend in electric mountain bikes. You can fix 90% of bike problems on a remote trail, with a small set of tools and a few spare parts. Electric bikes bring something that isn't going to be as easy to fix.
After a visit to SE Asia I'm in agreement. The transformation that will take place in those cities from IC motorbikes to eBikes will be a huge quality of life improvement in terms of pollution and noise.
Not sure about North America. So many fast moving heavy vehicles and poorer weather don't make eBikes for the masses as appealing.
Not sure about North America. So many fast moving heavy vehicles and poorer weather don't make eBikes for the masses as appealing.