Baum new model with new internal method

[Mark McM]

Originally Posted by fignon's barber

ISO certification has nothing to do with safety. All it indicates is that you can formally document procedures in manufacturing. But then again, with your vast knowledge on the subject, you probably knew that. LOL.

ISO is the International Standards Organization, which publishes many standards. you might be thinking of ISO 9000/9001, which are process documentation standards, but they also publish safety and test standards as well. The safety test standard appropriate to this discussion is ISO 4210 Safety Requirements for Bicycles. This standard includes testing on forks, including tensile test, tire clearance test, rearward impact test, brake mount torque tests, etc.

[krooj]

Originally Posted by fignon's barber

ISO certification has nothing to do with safety. All it indicates is that you can formally document procedures in manufacturing. But then again, with your vast knowledge on the subject, you probably knew that. LOL.

https://step-lab.com/iso/iso-4210/#A...“_TEST_METHODS

lol, indeed.

Originally Posted by Mark McM

ISO is the International Standards Organization, which publishes many standards. you might be thinking of ISO 9000/9001, which are process documentation standards, but they also publish safety and test standards as well. The safety test standard appropriate to this discussion is ISO 4210 Safety Requirements for Bicycles. This standard includes testing on forks, including tensile test, tire clearance test, rearward impact test, brake mount torque tests, etc.

Exactly - it's probably covered under 4210-5 or 4210-6, which cover fork and cockpit testing, respectively.

[bicycletricycle]

While ISO testing is great I would say that it doesn’t catch all things that are important to me/us in choosing a bicycle / bicycle component.

Also. Lots of things that have passed the required quality testing yet still failed in the field so while testing is important it isn’t a guarantee.

Example- I don’t know what kind of ISO tests there are for cranks but I bet shimano bonded cranks passed whatever was required.

Plenty of us with practical experience making / repairing things knew that bonded metal cranks aren’t a great idea.

I’m don’t know how this fork will work out but I do know -
1. bonding dissimilar materials is always a potential source for problems.
2. Cutting a slot in a tube takes a lot of strength out of it, especially when the slot goes all the way through one end.

Add that to more personal values I have
1. I think really expensive objects should be made to last as long as possible
2. Internal cables look cool but aren’t worth all the hassle, for me
3. good design is always a compromise, for me the compromises are too great if all you get is a normal stem with internal routing out of it.

All that being said the bike looks nice and I hope lots of people have fun riding them.

[Mikej]

The bonded channel insert and shape could actually make the tube stronger. Perhaps the Baum fork has a modified plug insert as well? Personally, that stem weight is scarier!

[tomato coupe]

Originally Posted by Mikej

The bonded channel insert and shape could actually make the tube stronger.

Very likely.

According to Baum, it’s a design that confidently passes international standards testing...

Considering this system is specifically used for a custom bike with known dimensions, Baum’s bonded steerer insert design is understandably a little more limiting in terms of future fit adjustments. Stem lengths can be changed, but by first removing the brake hoses (as with any design that has the hoses running through the stem). Meanwhile, the design allows for the stem height to be reduced by as much as 20 mm through cutting the steerer – but it’s a one-direction option.

[benb]

I think one of the problems with safety is there is no manufacturer that acts as the "Volvo of bikes" cause they'd go out of business almost immediately.

The market goes for performance over anything else every time and if safety is an issue it takes a long time for it to catch up with a bike if the performance is/was there.

[bicycletricycle]

I think nitto and Phil wood are Volvo ish?

I think a lot of touring bikes and maybe modern gravel/monstercross bikes kinda fit into the Volvo model of consumer appeal . Maybe black mountain cycles and Rivendell are good examples?

Road racing bikes will probably never be sold with a Volvo style of messaging though

Originally Posted by benb

I think one of the problems with safety is there is no manufacturer that acts as the "Volvo of bikes" cause they'd go out of business almost immediately.

The market goes for performance over anything else every time and if safety is an issue it takes a long time for it to catch up with a bike if the performance is/was there.

[Mark McM]

Originally Posted by benb

I think one of the problems with safety is there is no manufacturer that acts as the "Volvo of bikes" cause they'd go out of business almost immediately.

Is this really an apt comparison? Volvo has certainly innovated many safety features, but these types of safety features don't really apply to bikes. What's the bike equivalent of the crumple zones, or side impact protection, or roll-over prevention systems? Most of Volvo's innovations involve either actively preventing collisions, or protecting the occupants in case of a collision. The bicycle equivalents of these innovations is more along the lines of helmets, reflectors and lights, rearward facing radar, etc.

The questions being addressed here are more about basic reliability. An automotive equivalent would be car manufacturers designing their systems so that the wheels didn't fall off or brakes didn't fail.

[superbowlpats]

I think its a great looking bike. In USD its just over $16K (the Baum $24K price is in AUD and includes a 10% tax). What does a similar build Firefly cost?

Way beyond what I would pay (or afford) for a bike but then again Spec had a Aethos with LTD Campy listed for $15.5K

Hard to see why its like 40% more $ the Baum Orbis tho.

[benb]

Originally Posted by Mark McM

Is this really an apt comparison? Volvo has certainly innovated many safety features, but these types of safety features don't really apply to bikes. What's the bike equivalent of the crumple zones, or side impact protection, or roll-over prevention systems? Most of Volvo's innovations involve either actively preventing collisions, or protecting the occupants in case of a collision. The bicycle equivalents of these innovations is more along the lines of helmets, reflectors and lights, rearward facing radar, etc.

The questions being addressed here are more about basic reliability. An automotive equivalent would be car manufacturers designing their systems so that the wheels didn't fall off or brakes didn't fail.

I don't know, maybe you're right.

But the fact we're even having a conversation about a bike with cuts in the most safety critical part of the bike in favor of a marginal gain (on a bike that's not aero anyway) says something.

In another type of mentality this design would never see the light of day. They'd go "marginal gain, makes maintenance and adjustment hard, people will worry about a possible safety issue, giant cost to do it" and skip it.

[tomato coupe]

Originally Posted by benb

But the fact we're even having a conversation about a bike with cuts in the most safety critical part of the bike in favor of a marginal gain (on a bike that's not aero anyway) says something.

Hidden cables are as much about aesthetics as they are about marginal aerodynamic gains.

[Julien]

Originally Posted by tomato coupe

Hidden cables are as much about aesthetics as they are about marginal aerodynamic gains.

I’ve been having this kind of internal debate actually. Say you have a metal bike, electronic groupset, discs, deep wheels, aero bar stem combo. What do you guys think would be the most aero set up:
- 36 OD head tube with external routing to the fork and the down tube (then internal) Rob English has made a few bikes with a similar set up I believe
- 46 OD head tube with integrated routing which the new Columbus fork for instance
- 52 OD head tube which some people find less aesthetically pleasing but also substantially increases the frontal area?

Is there a superior set up strictly from an aerodynamic standpoint? How much watts are we talking about?

[fa63]

The benefit of hidden cables is ~2 Watts at 45 km/h, which is ~0.6 Watt at 30 km/h (18.8 mph).

Power is proportional to speed cubed -- (30kph/45kph)^3 = 0.3 and 0.3 x 2 Watts = 0.6 Watt

https://road.cc/content/feature/full...orth-it-306249

Originally Posted by Julien

Is there a superior set up strictly from an aerodynamic standpoint? How much watts are we talking about?

[nspace]

Well routed cables that are the perfect length are functionally beautiful to me; has never felt like something I felt the need to hide.

Baum is out of my budget today with their early 2000's pricing...it looks like that hasn't changed.

[duff_duffy]

Should I ask for a discount? They fixed the website.

Originally Posted by duff_duffy

Well, I was frankly trying to figure out what the marketing BS with this bike meant…ChatGPT to the rescue:
The bike is super cool and easy to ride. It's like a shiny new toy that's really smooth and nice. It has a simple front part where you hold on, like holding hands with a friend. And even though it's new, it still looks fancy and timeless, like a beautiful picture in a book.

I think even funnier for 20k I want a Modern Classic, not a Moden Classic