The TdF Bikes...Interesting Thoughts on Fit, Design and Marketing

[RedRider]

This was posted by Happy Freedman. He is a NYC based bicycle fitter, coach and former racer. He does not sell bicycles... Your thoughts???

The Tour de France is over withdrawal starts tomorrow. Time for the recap. Great racing amazing performances and tons of crashes. While the crashes I have a theory. When I first started racing all the pros had bike built for them. Basically everyone got a custom frame or two or three or four. Bicycles were built for specific tasks some for Hillclimb's some for long road stages and others for time trials. It was built out of steel and later titanium teams and special workshops just to provide the pros they sponsored special bikes. Today's bikes are carbon fiber basically the same bike in the shop has the same geometry is the pros Road in tour. This means the Pro bike racer is not getting the ideal fit but the marketing department is getting the ideal bike we don't very seat angles or top tube lengths to compensate for different torsos and flexibility . the only fit tools you have making the rider comfortable and efficient on the bike are by changing stem length , stack height and a bar width and drop seatpost and saddles as well as . Gone are the days when we built the bike around the body and riding style of the cyclist.
Today's pros are highly skilled .I think we should provide them with the best possible equipment to conduct races safely. A poorly fitting bike does not help the bike handling skills of the Cyclist riding it. Here I go again pontificating about bikefit.
But I am a bike fitter

[tv_vt]

Well,... I think that could use some editing so it would make more sense, for starters.

But general thesis being that store-bought frames don't work for the pros? Not sure about that. But some aspects could be playing a role. Such as trail and how quick the frames steer. (I wonder if slower steering frames would be better.)

What about braking with carbon rims, especially in wet conditions?

And is it really fact that there are more crashes now? Would like to see some hard data to back that up. One Tour is not enough to draw any conclusions. And it's only one race in the season.

[chengher87]

I know Sagan's Cannondale is custom fitted to his body. I believe his frame is fairly asymmetric (even by Cannondale standards and from what I've read not mass produced). I assume the "stars" get theirs and the rest make do.

[sante pollastri]

Very stupid article written by a nostalgic of the steel era.

[OtayBW]

A poorly fitting bike does not help the bike handling skills of the Cyclist riding it.[/I]
Fit may be optimized by a custom build, but lack of a custom build certainly does not equate to a 'poorly fitting' bike - especially at the pro team level.

[enr1co]

With his introductory sentences, is he correlating the increased level of crashes with inferior bike fit? To this, my thoughts are that most pros are highly skilled handlers and that they would would not consider the fitment on their bike (whether factory stock or custom) being a factor with crashes.

With regards to general fit, perhaps his thoughts, concerns could be best addressed with discussion with the guys who fit the pros on the sponsors bikes.

[fiamme red]

Question about his assumption: are there actually more crashes now than 20 or 30 years ago?

[oldpotatoe]

This was posted by Happy Freedman. He is a NYC based bicycle fitter, coach and former racer. He does not sell bicycles... Your thoughts???

The Tour de France is over withdrawal starts tomorrow. Time for the recap. Great racing amazing performances and tons of crashes. While the crashes I have a theory. When I first started racing all the pros had bike built for them. Basically everyone got a custom frame or two or three or four. Bicycles were built for specific tasks some for Hillclimb's some for long road stages and others for time trials. It was built out of steel and later titanium teams and special workshops just to provide the pros they sponsored special bikes. Today's bikes are carbon fiber basically the same bike in the shop has the same geometry is the pros Road in tour. This means the Pro bike racer is not getting the ideal fit but the marketing department is getting the ideal bike we don't very seat angles or top tube lengths to compensate for different torsos and flexibility . the only fit tools you have making the rider comfortable and efficient on the bike are by changing stem length , stack height and a bar width and drop seatpost and saddles as well as . Gone are the days when we built the bike around the body and riding style of the cyclist.
Today's pros are highly skilled .I think we should provide them with the best possible equipment to conduct races safely. A poorly fitting bike does not help the bike handling skills of the Cyclist riding it. Here I go again pontificating about bikefit.
But I am a bike fitter

In my experience selling bikes, only a very small percentage of the cyclists needed a custom frame. To imply the majority of 'pros' are forced to ride ill fitting bikes, I think is poppycock. Riding 4-6 hours per day for 3 weeks, I'd say most fit pretty good.

If anything, real pros, being younger, very fit and very flexible, I'd say it was easier, not harder, to get a good fit.

[Elefantino]

That strikes me as retro-grouchiness bordering on nonsense.

[MattTuck]

Well,... I think that could use some editing so it would make more sense, for starters.

But general thesis being that store-bought frames don't work for the pros? Not sure about that. But some aspects could be playing a role. Such as trail and how quick the frames steer. (I wonder if slower steering frames would be better.)

What about braking with carbon rims, especially in wet conditions?

And is it really fact that there are more crashes now? Would like to see some hard data to back that up. One Tour is not enough to draw any conclusions. And it's only one race in the season.

+1. Carbon rims in the rain are an actual problem. But as a bike fitter, he doesn't have much to say about that. So he has to talk his own book.

Also, don't forget that Nibali rode Hautacam slower than Armstrong and Riis, and many others from previous tours. Further evidence that their climbing positions were more dialed in than Nibali's. :rolleyes:

[crownjewelwl]

he doesnt sell bikes BUT he sells fittings!

[pavel]

That guy is not a great writer.

[Md3000]

He doesn't come across as very happy

[rnhood]

He is a good example of why companies don't show much interest in hiring older people. Tunnel vision and unable to change.

Its like whining about surgeons using the laparoscopic procedure instead of the long incision where you can admire the skill in slicing the patient open.

[shovelhd]

Carbon tubulars in the rain are not a problem. I prefer them over aluminum. Both have to shed water for the first revolution of two. The alumninum can be grabby where the carbon is more predictable.

[vav]

This guy crashed. Obviously has no idea how to handle a bike :p

http://www.sbs.com.au/cyclingcentral/resize/file/8214_sagan-640-aap.jpg/id/51328/w/640/h/360

[bcroslin]

I'm surprised he didn't also mention how these fancy new bikes have a tendency to explode

[enr1co]

Froomes position and fit has to be one of the ugliest out there but he or anyone would not point to this as a reason for his crashing out this year.


http://inspire-ipcmedia-com.s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/inspirewp/live/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2014/06/WATSON_00003840-042-630x418.jpg

[Mark McM]

Froomes position and fit has to be one of the ugliest out there but he or anyone would not point to this as a reason for his crashing out this year.

Maybe he was staring at his stem, preoccupied about whether it fit correctly?

[FastforaSlowGuy]

I'd be shocked if poor fit was a cause for crashes. A few mm here or there doesn't turn a bike into a death trap. And many (not all) of the top bikes have frame specific forks to optimize trail.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hindmost]

If one is selling bicycle fitting and custom frames then off-the-shelf frames are represented as being inferior.

[CunegoFan]

When riders were able to use custom frames they did not have to use stems like this to get them to fit.

http://i.imgur.com/RJcmj2q.jpg

Pros are riding frames designed for the needs of middle age recreational riders who typically have an extra twenty or more pounds around their middle and usually have poor flexibility. The fit is often terrible.

[oldpotatoe]

Carbon tubulars in the rain are not a problem. I prefer them over aluminum. Both have to shed water for the first revolution of two. The alumninum can be grabby where the carbon is more predictable.

Yup, another myth, crappy braking, foisted by scam and Zipp

[bikinchris]

Question about his assumption: are there actually more crashes now than 20 or 30 years ago?

No, but the number of teams allowed in the tour HAS been raised over the years. the roads of the tour are more crowded.

[bikinchris]

When riders were able to use custom frames they did not have to use stems like this to get them to fit.

http://i.imgur.com/RJcmj2q.jpg

Pros are riding frames designed for the needs of middle age recreational riders who typically have an extra twenty or more pounds around their middle and usually have poor flexibility. The fit is often terrible.

Pros are also riding geometry that is designed for the taste of the average rider who rides far less than your average pro and a very different style of riding altogether. Almost a crit geometry. I remember the Italian bikes selling in the 70's were not the same as the tour bikes they built for stage racing. The Americans just rode and raced differently and didn't want the original frames they sold for longer distance riding. They didn't feel as lively and quick handling.
Like the picture shows, the vast majority of pros are riding stock frames. The companies are not going to pay for equipment and tooling to make custom sizes and geometry.

[Black Dog]

No, but the number of teams allowed in the tour HAS been raised over the years. the roads of the tour are more crowded.

Nope. There were more teams and riders in the tour 25 years ago.

The difference is in the desperation to get on tv. The pace is fast from the gun and everyone is trying to ride at the front at the same time. Recipe for crashes.

[StephenCL]

Froomes position and fit has to be one of the ugliest out there but he or anyone would not point to this as a reason for his crashing out this year.


http://inspire-ipcmedia-com.s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/inspirewp/live/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2014/06/WATSON_00003840-042-630x418.jpg

I would argue that in fact Froome's position on a bike is a leading indicator of his poor bike handling skills...The way he drapes over the machine, it can't possibly act as one with his body.

Take this photo of hinualt riding a criterium for example, here you can see that he has become one with his bike. His bike was custom fit to him, stem length and saddle setback in appropriate correlation to his dimensions.

Conversely, Froome rides a frame that is at least 6-8 cm smaller than what is needed to be comfortable. Extending the stem length to compensate for reach throws off the frames balance and affects the way the bike handles not only on decents, but just in day to day traffic, with sudden direction changes.

While I do believe the original fitters post is a bit of modern day material bashing, he has a VERY valid point about fitting and the price one pays for an ill fitting bicycle. Especially when it comes to handling. I remember a few years ago when Tom Bonnen had to ride a specialized aluminum crafted bike as the stock carbon ones just wouldnt work for him...or when Oscar Perriro won the tour on a Dogma Magnesium because the Paris Carbon's didn't have a top tube long enough for him..

We absolutely pay a price for living and riding in a cookie cutter world where if we are lucky, each manufacturer makes at most 7 sizes...

Open up a Colorado Cyclist or Excel Sports catalog from the early 1990's and you will see where most production steel bicycles were made in 1cm increments from about 52-58 and 2 cm increments outside thoses ranges.




Stephen

[beeatnik]

http://www.velocipedesalon.com/forum/f2/tdf-crashes-27823-2.html#post408667

According to the opinion of Mr Sachs:

I think many of the positions in the pro peloton are atrocious. There's way too much weight too far ahead of the central movement. Most cats have their hands way too low in space to negotiate very much at high speeds. And I think the frame styles, being as small as they are, exacerbate many of the handling problems. Oh, and a lot of the industrial made bicycles have front centers that seem too short, and matching rears as well. That last part is an observation, not an opinion based on measuring a cross section of bicycles atmo.

[Gummee]

Personally, I think the OP and Sachs are on to something.

Pros seem to be riding smaller and smaller frame sizes and longer and longer stems to compensate.

Add to that the 'slam the stem' ethos of bike fit and you've got problems brewing.

I've ridden a 135mm stem. Didn't like it. (still have that stem. Can't seem to sell it!)

I don't bend like that any more. Middle age done did me in

M

[Jason E]

These guys ride more hours, faster, descending things we never could, and the handling is impeding them? No.

And he is a forum member, not an Oracle.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[Jason E]

I don't bend like that any more. Middle age done did me in

M


... You know, as opposed to a 23 year old professional athlete....

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[fogrider]

I know Sagan's Cannondale is custom fitted to his body. I believe his frame is fairly asymmetric (even by Cannondale standards and from what I've read not mass produced). I assume the "stars" get theirs and the rest make do.

the top riders get custom bikes built by builders, they use the same basic materials but they are built for the rider by a builder and not a factory worker in Asia. look at Cav's bike, pretty sure you can't find that at the dealer. the domestique's bikes are another story. and yes, even pros crash when going hard and fast with 50 close friend on roads they're not familiar with. it's crazy that Contador crashed because he hit a pothole...I'm I the only one that thinks someone should have at least patched that?

[sante pollastri]

the top riders get custom bikes built by builders, they use the same basic materials but they are built for the rider by a builder and not a factory worker in Asia. look at Cav's bike, pretty sure you can't find that at the dealer. the domestique's bikes are another story. and yes, even pros crash when going hard and fast with 50 close friend on roads they're not familiar with. it's crazy that Contador crashed because he hit a pothole...I'm I the only one that thinks someone should have at least patched that?

No,you are wrong,it's made in Asia,and not by a phantom framebuilder.
Only big factories can do hi tech carbon frames.

[sante pollastri]

http://www.velocipedesalon.com/forum/f2/tdf-crashes-27823-2.html#post408667

According to the opinion of Mr Sachs:

I think many of the positions in the pro peloton are atrocious. There's way too much weight too far ahead of the central movement. Most cats have their hands way too low in space to negotiate very much at high speeds. And I think the frame styles, being as small as they are, exacerbate many of the handling problems. Oh, and a lot of the industrial made bicycles have front centers that seem too short, and matching rears as well. That last part is an observation, not an opinion based on measuring a cross section of bicycles atmo.

Problem is that mr Sachs hasn't got experience in pro races,he only watch tv and pics,like us.
Big factories are in the play from a lot of years,and develop new frames with the pro's feedbacks.
Race is not about static elegance....

[soulspinner]

To me we have arrived at a point where some frames seem too stiff and dont ride over irregularities in the road with the same control a bike with the right amount of flex (for a given rider). Rain combined with bad roads at high speeds only makes the situation more sketchy.......or skittery (is that a word?:rolleyes:) YMMV

[Peter P.]

I think Happy is making some bizarre claims about fit that have no merit.

99% of us AND PRO CYCLISTS can fit stock frames.

I WILL suggest as others have, that carbon wheels, with their poorer heat dissipation and subsequent poorer braking, can be a contributing factor. It's likely a partial reason for the push for road disc brakes.

The newer frame designs with the longer, lower, stem slammed position could also be a contributor. I question the ability to see comfortably down the road and all around you for long periods of time when you have to crane your neck more with these bikes. It could explain the "Chris Froome Stem Staring" phenomenon.

[fuzzalow]

I agree with the OP on one his points that the current bikes are better for the marketers rather than the fit of the riders. But that does not make automatic that a pro rider cannot be made to fit into a stock frame geometry. It can be done but it doesn't have to be pretty, it just has to work. The bike setups can look cartoonish because some of the riders must cram themselves into the smallest frame sizes in order to get the bar drop they require - too much headtube is a hard point chassis restriction that is impossible to get around. So there is no choice but to go a smaller frame size and extend the contact points outwards with maximum stem lengths and saddle setbacks.

It does not help if the bike manufacturer sponsor makes bikes with longer headtubes to sell to the general public and also expects the same geometry from these molds to be used to fit a pro who rides in the manner of long 'n' low. Trying to make that incompatibility work is how you get the slammed 160mm stem. I don't follow the trends in how the big manufacturers spec bikes but it seem logical if they want to sell bikes that they gotta be made high in the front end - aging demographic at play here.

Sorry to sound like a broken record here but I feel obligated to say it: if you rely on core strength and flexibility to ride a drop bar bicycle, you are riding in a manner that is injurious to your long term health in your ability to be a sport cyclist. You will most assuredly not be riding in this way as your age advances - your spinal discs will diminish in flexibility and the abuse of riding with a curved spine will drive the frontend of your bike to get higher and higher if you continue riding in the way that has always been.

My observation from last years TdF re: Froome is that he is simply a gangly, inelegant rider that pedals a bike with power but not grace. Froome does not run much length and bar drop that I can see so his staring at his stem is just his unique quirk and not a response to him being torsoed-horizontal, as it were. IMO Richie Porte has a far better fit & position and form on his bike than Froome. And also Sir Bradley the year before that.

[firerescuefin]

Problem is that mr Sachs hasn't got experience in pro races,he only watch tv and pics,like us.
Big factories are in the play from a lot of years,and develop new frames with the pro's feedbacks.
Race is not about static elegance....

Your opinions are very strong, often times borderline offensive., and your statement about Richard is ignorant.

[fuzzalow]

Your opinions are very strong, often times borderline offensive., and your statement about Richard is ignorant.

Don't worry about it. sante is just prodding for a reaction. That form of irritant is learned behavior that plays well ATH. Here in these hallows, not so well.

[Climb01742]

All this makes the approach that colnago took for years look very smart: a zillion sizes of his c bikes with usually 1cm increments and tube+lug construction to make custom at least possible in carbon. Ernesto understood racing and fit apparently.;)

[sante pollastri]

Your opinions are very strong, often times borderline offensive., and your statement about Richard is ignorant.

be quiet,Little boy,and try to write something with sense.

[sante pollastri]

Don't worry about it. sante is just prodding for a reaction. That form of irritant is learned behavior that plays well ATH. Here in these hallows, not so well.

my biographer.....

[oldpotatoe]

Problem is that mr Sachs hasn't got experience in pro races,he only watch tv and pics,like us.
Big factories are in the play from a lot of years,and develop new frames with the pro's feedbacks.
Race is not about static elegance....

wow...I guess the internet was late to Italia...and google...and manners...and......

Big factories, who want to make a bunch of $....none is Europe, BTW--the really nice corporate offices are tho, with pretty receptionists, 'sorry, Mr Colnago is out to luuch, he will be back in 4 hours'....

[Gummee]

... You know, as opposed to a 23 year old professional athlete....

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

The point still stands: when you're relying on 130, 140, and up to 165mm stems (check the pics on most of the cycling websites) to make a frame fit, handling suffers. Too much weight in the wrong spots for the frame design = bad.

Ditto with fitting people using super short stems.

I get that running lots of drop is 'the pro thing to do' but when guys that are 6' + are riding frames smaller than I'm on at 5'8" something's gotta give.

M

[sante pollastri]

wow...I guess the internet was late to Italia...and google...and manners...and......

Big factories, who want to make a bunch of $....none is Europe, BTW--the really nice corporate offices are tho, with pretty receptionists, 'sorry, Mr Colnago is out to luuch, he will be back in 4 hours'....

I'm sorry,but I can't reply to a clown plenty of campy tattoos.

[soulspinner]

All this makes the approach that colnago took for years look very smart: a zillion sizes of his c bikes with usually 1cm increments and tube+lug construction to make custom at least possible in carbon. Ernesto understood racing and fit apparently.;)

+1 I can ride stock c59 geo, with a very short midsection and long legs 52 sloper with 110 stem. Almost no other stock bike can I ride with the 110 stem and having my weight distribution just right. Now if I just didnt have tuition..........................

[oldpotatoe]

I'm sorry,but I can't reply to a clown plenty of campy tattoos.

But, you just did!!!

I get my red nose out everytime I write about you.

[soulspinner]

But, you just did!!!

I get my red nose out everytime I write about you.

:eek:

[EDS]

The point still stands: when you're relying on 130, 140, and up to 165mm stems (check the pics on most of the cycling websites) to make a frame fit, handling suffers. Too much weight in the wrong spots for the frame design = bad.

Ditto with fitting people using super short stems.

I get that running lots of drop is 'the pro thing to do' but when guys that are 6' + are riding frames smaller than I'm on at 5'8" something's gotta give.

M

This is the first I have heard that a 130 mm stem was an inappropriate length. Why? Sure on a 47cm frame it would seem disproportionate and a sign of some fit issues, but on a 58cm frame?

[Keith A]

be quiet,Little boy,and try to write something with sense.

I'm sorry,but I can't reply to a clown plenty of campy tattoos.

Seems like someone isn't abiding by this rule in our user agreement...
• Harassment: Respect toward fellow members is expected and required. You agree not to harass, flame, insult, taunt, or otherwise disrespect any member of this forum. Polite and intelligent disagreement is expected and inevitable in this type of forum. Personal attacks are not permitted at any time.

[jr59]

Seems like someone isn't abiding by this rule in our user agreement...
• Harassment: Respect toward fellow members is expected and required. You agree not to harass, flame, insult, taunt, or otherwise disrespect any member of this forum. Polite and intelligent disagreement is expected and inevitable in this type of forum. Personal attacks are not permitted at any time.


:hello::hello:

Keith being polite.... well done and played. There are other Mods on this forum that will try to bar you for what you say privately, as in not on this forum.

Well done sir!!:hello::hello:

[54ny77]

slam that stem.

http://i.dawn.com/2012/05/national-day-of-the-peruvian-clown-reuters-670-12.jpg

[sante pollastri]

But, you just did!!!

I get my red nose out everytime I write about you.

as above,merikan.

[nooneline]

Nope. There were more teams and riders in the tour 25 years ago.

There were 22 teams with 9 riders each 25 years ago. That's exactly the same number of teams and riders as in this year's Tour.

[Mark McM]

The point still stands: when you're relying on 130, 140, and up to 165mm stems (check the pics on most of the cycling websites) to make a frame fit, handling suffers. Too much weight in the wrong spots for the frame design = bad.

Ditto with fitting people using super short stems.

I get that running lots of drop is 'the pro thing to do' but when guys that are 6' + are riding frames smaller than I'm on at 5'8" something's gotta give.

So, here's a related question: While the stems in the "classic" era were all about -17 degrees (so that the extension was roughly parallel to the ground), today they are made in a variety of angles. In fact, the most common stems today have only a small angle, so that they rise up a bit from the steerer to the handlebar. Why not make stems with even larger negative angles, so that they can lower the handlebar below the top of the steerer? Wouldn't this allow a rider who likes a large seat-to-handlebar drop to use a more appropriate sized frame, rather than having to use a too small frame? These stems are sometimes seen on track bikes, why not on road bikes?

[Ahneida Ride]

I'm sorry,but I can't reply to a clown plenty of campy tattoos.

Completely inappropriate comment. :butt:

[redir]

When riders were able to use custom frames they did not have to use stems like this to get them to fit.

http://i.imgur.com/RJcmj2q.jpg

Pros are riding frames designed for the needs of middle age recreational riders who typically have an extra twenty or more pounds around their middle and usually have poor flexibility. The fit is often terrible.

It does come from some tradition. In the old days many racers thought that a smaller frame fitted with larger stems and seat posts was better because the frame would be stiffer and lighter. I bought into that logic in the 80's and it's a hard one to shake off. But even so back then it was more common to have a lot less saddle to bar drop but we road in the drops a lot more as it was easier to get to the DT shifters.

[fiamme red]

One difference between the Tour now and 25 years ago is that many more riders now take part in the sprints. Back then, sprints were reserved for a few select sprinters, but now they are much more complicated, with lead-out teams that create a lot of chaos and sometimes pile-ups.

[nooneline]

One difference between the Tour now and 25 years ago is that many more riders now take part in the sprints. Back then, sprints were reserved for a few select sprinters, but now they are much more complicated, with lead-out teams that create a lot of chaos and sometimes pile-ups.

I'm not sure that's the case. The purpose of a lead-out train is to create order.

Anyway, though, I'm not sure we could actually argue comparatively between now and then without some actual data on crashes, or at least attrition. And unfortunately a lot of the results databases don't get too thorough that far back. But I did look back to 1999 at attrition rates, which are (initially) a decent stand-in for crashes, and still let you understand when there's mountain-stage-related attrition:

http://www.squadralytics.com/2014/07/with-all-crashes-in-this-years-tour.html

[ergott]

Not that different. Also head tubes on bikes like Trek H1 and Cannondale SuperSix aren't exactly long. Keep in mind old bikes had more stack from a taller headset and a quill stem that couldn't be slammed as close to the TT.

http://ruedatropical.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/1950coppi-contador.png

[Gummee]

Not that different. Also head tubes on bikes like Trek H1 and Cannondale SuperSix aren't exactly long. Keep in mind old bikes had more stack from a taller headset and a quill stem that couldn't be slammed as close to the TT.

http://ruedatropical.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/1950coppi-contador.png

Try that with a pic of Adam Hanson. ...or some of the other guys riding 52-54cm frames when they *should* be on 58-60cm frames

M

[Mark McM]

Not that different. Also head tubes on bikes like Trek H1 and Cannondale SuperSix aren't exactly long. Keep in mind old bikes had more stack from a taller headset and a quill stem that couldn't be slammed as close to the TT.

http://ruedatropical.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/1950coppi-contador.png

There's also the influence of compact anatomical bars. With classic (round) drops, the bars had a deeper drop, and the levers were mounted lower on the bar. This meant that the stem was higher for the same saddle-to-hand position with classic bars. In addition, many compact bars have a shorter reach than the classic bars did, so a longer stem is required for the same "tiller" length (stem + handlebar reach).

[ergott]

Try that with a pic of Adam Hanson. ...or some of the other guys riding 52-54cm frames when they *should* be on 58-60cm frames

M

I don't consider guys like him the norm. There have always been people experimenting with positions.

http://www.retrobike.co.uk/forum/download/file.php?id=110336

I think if you look across the broad spectrum of bikes in the pits the trend is more compact handle bars (in both drop and reach) paired with longer stems. I don't think the overall difference between hand positions in the drops is as drastic as it's made out to be. There's less difference between hand positions from drops to hoods to tops now.

If someone has more concrete evidence that the reach/drop from saddle to drops has changed that much I'd like to see.

[fiamme red]

I'm not sure that's the case. The purpose of a lead-out train is to create order.The purpose of a lead-out train isn't to create order in the peloton as a whole, it's to get the team's sprinter to the finish line as effectively as possible. Lead-out riders who move out of the way and slow down are an impediment to anyone behind trying to sprint. In fact, lead-out men often seem to help the designated team sprinter by blocking opponents (not obtrusively, but subtly) as they pull off.

[Jason E]

I'm not sure where any of us get off telling Adam Hansen his position is messed up.

[bobswire]

When Mondonico was doing his "last" fitting tour in 2006 I had the opportunity to be fitted at the Bike Nook in San Francisco at the price of $1450 total for frame fork. Having just purchased a Della Santa and after checking the geo of the frame Antonio would have built for me I passed and regretted it ever since.
The main reason I passed at the time I thought the frame was much smaller than what I was accustomed to. He measured me up then I received a receipt with measurements and I was supposed to send a deposit along with signed receipt if I wanted to follow through with it. I thought it over and felt a 53.8 cm tt was too short at the time (was riding 56cm), never mind the fact I'd be more than comfortable with that now.

[fiamme red]

I'm not sure where any of us get off telling Adam Hansen his position is messed up.Well, I wouldn't say it's messed up. But he sometimes does look like a monkey humping a football. :)

[nooneline]

The purpose of a lead-out train isn't to create order in the peloton as a whole, it's to get the team's sprinter to the finish line as effectively as possible. Lead-out riders who move out of the way and slow down are an impediment to anyone behind trying to sprint. In fact, lead-out men often seem to help the designated team sprinter by blocking opponents (not obtrusively, but subtly) as they pull off.

You're definitely right about blowing lead-out men being a problem, but a good lead-out is definitely about order. In a race, speed is order. A good lead-out train protects a sprinter, and delivers them to the line, by being so fast that it's single file all the way back and nobody else can move up and swarm the sprinter.

But maybe I'm just splitting hairs because I see your point: these days we have multiple lead-out trains each capable of getting to the front and controlling things.

[redir]

You're definitely right about blowing lead-out men being a problem, but a good lead-out is definitely about order. In a race, speed is order. A good lead-out train protects a sprinter, and delivers them to the line, by being so fast that it's single file all the way back and nobody else can move up and swarm the sprinter.

But maybe I'm just splitting hairs because I see your point: these days we have multiple lead-out trains each capable of getting to the front and controlling things.

I thought the use of the word order was a bit odd too but your explanation above is spot on. On that same token it's similiar to blocking which is something very misunderstood in amateur ranks. Blocking isn't about clogging up the front and going slow, rather, it's about allowing your guy(s) in the break to be gaining seconds while maintaining a speed that is just comfortable enough for the pelaton to not really want to get in the wind but just slow enough to allow your guys to creep off the front. So I guess it is a sense of order as you put it or as I would put it it's more about control.

Semantics ;)

[josephr]

I don't consider guys like him the norm. There have always been people experimenting with positions.

http://www.retrobike.co.uk/forum/download/file.php?id=110336

I think if you look across the broad spectrum of bikes in the pits the trend is more compact handle bars (in both drop and reach) paired with longer stems. I don't think the overall difference between hand positions in the drops is as drastic as it's made out to be. There's less difference between hand positions from drops to hoods to tops now.

If someone has more concrete evidence that the reach/drop from saddle to drops has changed that much I'd like to see.

Thanks for the cool pics of Bauer's ride...I like the rear lip on the saddle to hold his butt in place! We'd all be riding one of those if he'd won. As far as the reach/drop question, without integrated shifters the rider needs a little more room to reach the DT shifters.
Joe

[saab2000]

I don't consider guys like him the norm. There have always been people experimenting with positions.

http://www.retrobike.co.uk/forum/download/file.php?id=110336

I think if you look across the broad spectrum of bikes in the pits the trend is more compact handle bars (in both drop and reach) paired with longer stems. I don't think the overall difference between hand positions in the drops is as drastic as it's made out to be. There's less difference between hand positions from drops to hoods to tops now.

If someone has more concrete evidence that the reach/drop from saddle to drops has changed that much I'd like to see.


I REALLY wish that there were a way to find out how that bike rode.

[mtechnica]

All this makes the approach that colnago took for years look very smart: a zillion sizes of his c bikes with usually 1cm increments and tube+lug construction to make custom at least possible in carbon. Ernesto understood racing and fit apparently.;)

You gotta give Ernesto credit for keeping colnago relevant and awesome all these years. They're finally kinda giving into the whole mass produced thing but such is the world we live in and Ernesto is a pragmatist that, surprisingly, isn't stuck in the past.

[ceolwulf]

I REALLY wish that there were a way to find out how that bike rode.


You could ask, he's on Twitter. @SteveBauer59

[saab2000]

You could ask, he's on Twitter. @SteveBauer59

I'm not on Twitter. Maybe I should be.

Pretty cool I guess!

[RonW87]

I REALLY wish that there were a way to find out how that bike rode.

I had the chance to chat with Steve a little while ago and asked him about that bike. As I recall, he said that he felt very powerful on it but you couldn't really get out of the saddle.

R.

[54ny77]

man that's a could shoulda right there, with a lifetime rig and storied experience to boot.

:eek:

(by the way i recall reading something here awhile back about len closing or soon to be closing, or am i mistaken?)

When Mondonico was doing his "last" fitting tour in 2006 I had the opportunity to be fitted at the Bike Nook in San Francisco at the price of $1450 total for frame fork. Having just purchased a Della Santa and after checking the geo of the frame Antonio would have built for me I passed and regretted it ever since.
The main reason I passed at the time I thought the frame was much smaller than what I was accustomed to. He measured me up then I received a receipt with measurements and I was supposed to send a deposit along with signed receipt if I wanted to follow through with it. I thought it over and felt a 53.8 cm tt was too short at the time (was riding 56cm), never mind the fact I'd be more than comfortable with that now.

[Ti Designs]

Just a few things to point out:

First, riders don't get to the Tour by some lottery, they earn the right to be there over seasons of racing. In any given race or training ride any rider could crash. The crashes in the Tour mean nothing, 'cept that they may have been a little deeper in the risk/reward trade-off.

Second, custom made frames using materials and methods that custom made frames can be made from give away performance advantages to the cutting edge technology. As much as I hate to admit it, my S-Works Tarmac SL4 has a clear performance advantage over my custom Serotta. In the Tour, performance advantages count...

Third, there is an endless supply of riders who need fitting help, any you're offering fitting help to the pros? Really? Here's a suggestion - find a new rider, or someone who's struggling, and help them. See how far they can get with your help. Then, do the same for someone else. If a few riders make good progress, your fitting advice could be valid. If not, I don't see the pros lining up at your door.

[Md3000]

+1, +2 and +3

[Climb01742]

. As much as I hate to admit it, my S-Works Tarmac SL4 has a clear performance advantage over my custom Serotta.

Ed, I know you've had that Serotta for quite some time and that you really like it. So that's a noteworthy statement. Would you mind telling us about the S-Works' performance advantage? I'd genuinely be curious because I know you'd not say that lightly. Thx.

[firerescuefin]

Ed, I know you've had that Serotta for quite some time and that you really like it. So that's a noteworthy statement. Would you mind telling us about the S-Works' performance advantage? I'd genuinely be curious because I know you'd not say that lightly. Thx.

I'm assuming we're comparing a Meivici? Yes

[Climb01742]

I'm assuming we're comparing a Meivici? Yes

I'm pretty sure Ed has an all ti Serotta. And to be clear, I'm totally sure the SL4_does_have a performance edge. Just curious, from Ed's years as a racer and coach, how he'd describe the edge. Bet he will be precise and articulate about it.

[firerescuefin]

I'm pretty sure Ed has an all ti Serotta. And to be clear, I'm totally sure the SL4_does_have a performance edge. Just curious, from Ed's years as a racer and coach, how he'd describe the edge. Bet he will be precise and articulate about it.

If we are comparing a late Meivici or a Crumpton/Parlee, I'd expect there to be little to no advantage or a possible disadvantage...maybe not in all out speed but tuned tubes and layups for each rider would give a better ride and as stiff as you'd want it to be.

Interested in the comparison, but not really apples to oranges as it relates to the OP article.

[firerescuefin]

Would love to hear from Charles M on his take.

[mike p]

How bout asking the pro's themselves? Anytime I've heard pro's talk about crashing in the tour the cause was always listed as, bad roads, nervousness, bad weather, and riders taking stupid risk's. Never heard one complain about their bike fit. I know no ones going to complain about a sponsors bike but believe me if the bikes were crap you'd hear about it.

Mike

[Ti Designs]

I'm assuming we're comparing a Meivici? Yes

What would make you assume that?

I break down bike frames into a couple of categories. One would be custom bikes, which in order to build as custom must have separate tube sets and some means of joining them. The same thing that allows them to be made custom also limits their performance. Then there are the mass produced bikes which are made using tooling that would be far too expensive to make any single [custom] bike with. The SL4 being a good example, better performance than you can get by joining tubes, but only affordable in large numbers.

My Serotta is the other end of the spectrum from the Meivici, it's a La Corsa with Dura-Ace 9-speed. It has two advantages, the first is the design. When I ordered it, Kelly Bedford called me a number of times and said it was a combination of too stiff and too steep, so it would be impossible to handle on anything but perfect roads. (I've done D2R2 on it twice). It's pretty much my track bike geometry with road drop-outs. The other advantage is that I'm the rider. I've been on the same geometry bike for years, it's what I like, and I use it's ability to cut into a turn to my advantage.

The S-Works SL4 is the standard Tarmac geometry, a bit slow by my tastes, but quick by most standards. It just so happens that the 54cm fits me much like my 56cm Serotta (so much for the need for custom fit...). In designing the Serotta I looked at the function of each tube as a single function - the down tube and chainstays are overbuilt to make it stiffer in the bottom bracket. In designing the SL4, Specialized could look at the shape of each tube as a function of the whole bike. The SL4 is clearly stiffer than my Serotta in the bottom bracket, it also resists twisting forces from the bars far better, and yet it's one of the most comfortable bikes I've put a lot of miles on. By comparison, I also put some mileage on the Venge and found it to be almost unfair fast in sprints, but about as soft riding as a brick with wheels.

Last weekend I got the chance to test ride the Dogma F8. The demo bikes were apparently put together in the dark, so 10 miles into the ride things were falling off of it, but my initial reaction was that it was even more responsive than my SL4. It's a good example of another bike built by means that don't lend themselves to doing custom, but do offer outstanding performance.

As for the ultimate value of a custom frame, in most cases I don't see it. I've been on a custom since 1988 when I had my first Peter Mooney built. Unlike most, every other custom I've had has been a copy of that geometry. I should also point out that I had many bikes before I ordered my first custom, when it was time for a bike that fit I brought my last two stock bikes to Peter Mooney and said I wanted everything in the center of the adjustment range. Unlike most people, my position hasn't changed very much. What has changed are the stock bikes. I now have a stock road bike and a stock tandem which both fit me just like my custom bikes do. I had to go down in size to get both the reach and drop, but that's the advantage of having so many different frames with taller or shorter head tubes and all sorts of other variations. Now if only we could get them to stop calling some of them "women's specific" and painting them pink...

[fogrider]

No,you are wrong,it's made in Asia,and not by a phantom framebuilder.
Only big factories can do hi tech carbon frames.

tell that to Calfee, Crumpton, LandShark, and Parlee just to name a few. You seem to think there is something magical that happens in big factories? a frame is still made out of sheets of carbon fibers by hand inject epoxy, put into a mold and baked at 400 degrees. in a big factory in asia, there are lots of people in an assembly line doing this putting out lots of bikes in stock sizes. in the US, builders like the ones I mentioned will build it to custom sizes one at a time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSUKM3bvcyk

[soulspinner]

What would make you assume that?

I break down bike frames into a couple of categories. One would be custom bikes, which in order to build as custom must have separate tube sets and some means of joining them. The same thing that allows them to be made custom also limits their performance. Then there are the mass produced bikes which are made using tooling that would be far too expensive to make any single [custom] bike with. The SL4 being a good example, better performance than you can get by joining tubes, but only affordable in large numbers.

My Serotta is the other end of the spectrum from the Meivici, it's a La Corsa with Dura-Ace 9-speed. It has two advantages, the first is the design. When I ordered it, Kelly Bedford called me a number of times and said it was a combination of too stiff and too steep, so it would be impossible to handle on anything but perfect roads. (I've done D2R2 on it twice). It's pretty much my track bike geometry with road drop-outs. The other advantage is that I'm the rider. I've been on the same geometry bike for years, it's what I like, and I use it's ability to cut into a turn to my advantage.

The S-Works SL4 is the standard Tarmac geometry, a bit slow by my tastes, but quick by most standards. It just so happens that the 54cm fits me much like my 56cm Serotta (so much for the need for custom fit...). In designing the Serotta I looked at the function of each tube as a single function - the down tube and chainstays are overbuilt to make it stiffer in the bottom bracket. In designing the SL4, Specialized could look at the shape of each tube as a function of the whole bike. The SL4 is clearly stiffer than my Serotta in the bottom bracket, it also resists twisting forces from the bars far better, and yet it's one of the most comfortable bikes I've put a lot of miles on. By comparison, I also put some mileage on the Venge and found it to be almost unfair fast in sprints, but about as soft riding as a brick with wheels.

Last weekend I got the chance to test ride the Dogma F8. The demo bikes were apparently put together in the dark, so 10 miles into the ride things were falling off of it, but my initial reaction was that it was even more responsive than my SL4. It's a good example of another bike built by means that don't lend themselves to doing custom, but do offer outstanding performance.

As for the ultimate value of a custom frame, in most cases I don't see it. I've been on a custom since 1988 when I had my first Peter Mooney built. Unlike most, every other custom I've had has been a copy of that geometry. I should also point out that I had many bikes before I ordered my first custom, when it was time for a bike that fit I brought my last two stock bikes to Peter Mooney and said I wanted everything in the center of the adjustment range. Unlike most people, my position hasn't changed very much. What has changed are the stock bikes. I now have a stock road bike and a stock tandem which both fit me just like my custom bikes do. I had to go down in size to get both the reach and drop, but that's the advantage of having so many different frames with taller or shorter head tubes and all sorts of other variations. Now if only we could get them to stop calling some of them "women's specific" and painting them pink...

Those last two sentences ring so true for my oddly short torso and short arms.

[1centaur]

As an owner of Crumptons and Parlees I can credibly say I appreciate what they bring to the table. I am a fan. I own no Specialized bikes and never have.

That said, as a matter of logic I think it is inescapable that an SL 4 or an F8 rides differently from a Crumpton or a Parlee, and that the process to get those stock frames to that point was expensive and intentional. Take angles and lengths out of the frame equation and you are left with tube properties and joining methods as means to an end, that end being performance, and performance being a combination of feel and function. Tube properties include construction, diameter, and shape. The possibilities in carbon construction seem far more various than in metal construction, or at least practically have been. Specialized and Pinarello work with their suppliers as new forms of layup are created and with their computers as various forms of stress analysis software are developed to come up with the stiff/compliant/light trade-offs that work. They consider variations of joining techniques and test the results, both at the R&D stage and on the road. There is no reason to believe that a Crumpton or Parlee, with different tube specs and joining techniques, end up riding with the exact same performance impact or feel. And once that is granted, the question of better or worse is on the table. Also the question of meaningful differences.

Many is the thread on here over the years that claimed a metal bike maker could build anything you want, so carbon did not bring anything meaningful to the table. But I think nobody here thinks metal and carbon bikes ride just the same. So behind the notion of "anything you want" was function, not feel. Effectively, a good rider could win on metal or fiber. Sure. But as carbon design advances, those bikes are getting more different from metal bikes. They actually can measure stiffness vs. compliance and see the effects of nano particles and odd shapes and monocoques and tube diameter. At some point, feel becomes part of function. Meaningful to punters like us? Hard to say. But it is there.

All of which is to say that Specialized and Pinarello may be producing bikes that are better, in feel, function, or both, for some people because the efforts they have made to do so are different from the efforts made by Nick and Bob. I am curious to try a Tarmac because they get so much love from reviewers, but I hate the shape, dislike the paint, don't love the maker, and have a full basement.

[soulspinner]

As an owner of Crumptons and Parlees I can credibly say I appreciate what they bring to the table. I am a fan. I own no Specialized bikes and never have.

That said, as a matter of logic I think it is inescapable that an SL 4 or an F8 rides differently from a Crumpton or a Parlee, and that the process to get those stock frames to that point was expensive and intentional. Take angles and lengths out of the frame equation and you are left with tube properties and joining methods as means to an end, that end being performance, and performance being a combination of feel and function. Tube properties include construction, diameter, and shape. The possibilities in carbon construction seem far more various than in metal construction, or at least practically have been. Specialized and Pinarello work with their suppliers as new forms of layup are created and with their computers as various forms of stress analysis software are developed to come up with the stiff/compliant/light trade-offs that work. They consider variations of joining techniques and test the results, both at the R&D stage and on the road. There is no reason to believe that a Crumpton or Parlee, with different tube specs and joining techniques, end up riding with the exact same performance impact or feel. And once that is granted, the question of better or worse is on the table. Also the question of meaningful differences.

Many is the thread on here over the years that claimed a metal bike maker could build anything you want, so carbon did not bring anything meaningful to the table. But I think nobody here thinks metal and carbon bikes ride just the same. So behind the notion of "anything you want" was function, not feel. Effectively, a good rider could win on metal or fiber. Sure. But as carbon design advances, those bikes are getting more different from metal bikes. They actually can measure stiffness vs. compliance and see the effects of nano particles and odd shapes and monocoques and tube diameter. At some point, feel becomes part of function. Meaningful to punters like us? Hard to say. But it is there.

All of which is to say that Specialized and Pinarello may be producing bikes that are better, in feel, function, or both, for some people because the efforts they have made to do so are different from the efforts made by Nick and Bob. I am curious to try a Tarmac because they get so much love from reviewers, but I hate the shape, dislike the paint, don't love the maker, and have a full basement.

This is really a well sorted reply.

[firerescuefin]

@ 1Centaur

Stock frames/Stock Layups are designed to perform and hold up across a large cross-section of riders. A Parlee or a Crumpton, with it's different tubes and tweaks to the layup are designed not only for a particular size but for riding style/type of power output.

I am not discounting how good production bikes have become, but to assume they have a inherent performance advantage over a master builder that works with Carbon does not make sense to me.

I've worked with Andy Pruitt twice. I never asked him about bikes, but I did ask him about Pro set ups. He said there are a lot of guys with horrible positions that have the athletic ability to overcome them. He mentioned one guy in particular. His name rhymes with Shmandy Shmleck and Andy said his position was very inefficient (as well as putting him at risk for injury) .....based more on tribal myth than good sense. He attempted to work with him (at the request of the manufacturer) and was told by Shmandy that bike science was "hokus pokus" and that he wasn't interested.

[beeatnik]

1Centaur = POTD

There's endless debate over at WW and Velocipede about the complexity of carbon production. Whether it's a labor/resource intensive or handicraft type of operation. Whether economies of scale matter. All that stuff. Anyway, without getting into the whole the frame is the frame koan, how much true technological sophistication can there be in bikes made from stock ENVE tubes? Isn't Crumpton doing everything from scratch now?

[Lionel]

As an owner of Crumptons and Parlees I can credibly say I appreciate what they bring to the table. I am a fan. I own no Specialized bikes and never have.

That said, as a matter of logic I think it is inescapable that an SL 4 or an F8 rides differently from a Crumpton or a Parlee, and that the process to get those stock frames to that point was expensive and intentional. Take angles and lengths out of the frame equation and you are left with tube properties and joining methods as means to an end, that end being performance, and performance being a combination of feel and function. Tube properties include construction, diameter, and shape. The possibilities in carbon construction seem far more various than in metal construction, or at least practically have been. Specialized and Pinarello work with their suppliers as new forms of layup are created and with their computers as various forms of stress analysis software are developed to come up with the stiff/compliant/light trade-offs that work. They consider variations of joining techniques and test the results, both at the R&D stage and on the road. There is no reason to believe that a Crumpton or Parlee, with different tube specs and joining techniques, end up riding with the exact same performance impact or feel. And once that is granted, the question of better or worse is on the table. Also the question of meaningful differences.

Many is the thread on here over the years that claimed a metal bike maker could build anything you want, so carbon did not bring anything meaningful to the table. But I think nobody here thinks metal and carbon bikes ride just the same. So behind the notion of "anything you want" was function, not feel. Effectively, a good rider could win on metal or fiber. Sure. But as carbon design advances, those bikes are getting more different from metal bikes. They actually can measure stiffness vs. compliance and see the effects of nano particles and odd shapes and monocoques and tube diameter. At some point, feel becomes part of function. Meaningful to punters like us? Hard to say. But it is there.

All of which is to say that Specialized and Pinarello may be producing bikes that are better, in feel, function, or both, for some people because the efforts they have made to do so are different from the efforts made by Nick and Bob. I am curious to try a Tarmac because they get so much love from reviewers, but I hate the shape, dislike the paint, don't love the maker, and have a full basement.

well said

[malbecman]

The possibilities in carbon construction seem far more various than in metal construction, or at least practically have been. Specialized and Pinarello work with their suppliers as new forms of layup are created and with their computers as various forms of stress analysis software are developed to come up with the stiff/compliant/light trade-offs that work. They consider variations of joining techniques and test the results, both at the R&D stage and on the road.

They actually can measure stiffness vs. compliance and see the effects of nano particles and odd shapes and monocoques and tube diameter. At some point, feel becomes part of function. Meaningful to punters like us? Hard to say. But it is there.


Just to add a data point to this comment, BMC apparently evaluated >34,000 prototypes with their ACE computer modelling program for their new Teammachine SLR01. From their website: "This sophisticated reiterative computer modeling program electronically prototyped more than 34,000 possible frame configurations with the goal of optimizing geometry, tube cross sections, carbon lay-up, ride quality, and handling characteristics. "

That ability is arguably CFs greatest strength.

[Mark McM]

Just to add a data point to this comment, BMC apparently evaluated >34,000 prototypes with their ACE computer modelling program for their new Teammachine SLR01. From their website: "This sophisticated reiterative computer modeling program electronically prototyped more than 34,000 possible frame configurations with the goal of optimizing geometry, tube cross sections, carbon lay-up, ride quality, and handling characteristics. "

That ability is arguably CFs greatest strength.

?????

There's no reason that this type of computer modeling can't be done for other materials as well. In fact, it has been. On this matter, there is no particular advantage of one material over another.

[54ny77]

34k iterations of frame design? Wow. To think, I spoke with a builder the other day and we went through about a dozen or so variables.

I guess I'm not getting my money's worth in iteration-per-dollar. :p

Just to add a data point to this comment, BMC apparently evaluated >34,000 prototypes with their ACE computer modelling program for their new Teammachine SLR01. From their website: "This sophisticated reiterative computer modeling program electronically prototyped more than 34,000 possible frame configurations with the goal of optimizing geometry, tube cross sections, carbon lay-up, ride quality, and handling characteristics. "

That ability is arguably CFs greatest strength.

[Climb01742]

Another angle on mass produced carbon is the value proposition of performance per dollar. I know that Cervelo is both a much loved and much not loved brand, but their new version of the R3 can be had, frame and fork, for $2k and the new S3 for a few hundred more for f/f. Lots can be said about Cervelo but they know carbon and the price for these two could give lots of bang for a budget.

[MadRocketSci]

34k iterations of frame design? Wow. To think, I spoke with a builder the other day and we went through about a dozen or so variables.

I guess I'm not getting my money's worth in iteration-per-dollar. :p

no biggie with the computer...called a "Monte Carlo" simulation.

the main trick would be assigning optimal or target values to the set of outputs you're looking at that translate into real world performance/comfort.

[malbecman]

?????

There's no reason that this type of computer modeling can't be done for other materials as well. In fact, it has been. On this matter, there is no particular advantage of one material over another.


I agree, however, metal tube sets are more limited in their layup, as it were. Sure, they can be double-butted or what have you, but a CF frame designer can rather quickly model/test whether adding an extra layer of CF across a specific section of the frame adds a certain desirable property, eg stiffness or vibration dampening.



edited for a typo.

[beeatnik]

no biggie with the computer...called a "Monte Carlo" simulation.

the main trick would be assigning optimal or target values to the set of outputs you're looking at that translate into real world performance/comfort.

And we all know most frame builders are also software developers in their spare time.

[fuzzalow]

Just to add a data point to this comment, BMC apparently evaluated >34,000 prototypes with their ACE computer modelling program for their new Teammachine SLR01. From their website: "This sophisticated reiterative computer modeling program electronically prototyped more than 34,000 possible frame configurations with the goal of optimizing geometry, tube cross sections, carbon lay-up, ride quality, and handling characteristics. "

Marketing buzz speak. What is deemed as a "34,000 possible frame configurations" does not imply any significant difference as to a meaningful result. All that it means is that a variable was changed in the numeric inputs to the computational model being run. When the model sequentially and sytematically cycles through any range of variables with any other range of tens, hundreds or thousands other variables, it is simple, easy and fast to burn through 100K's of thousands of computations with each result, in theory, a unique configuration.

Financial models and engineering analyses employ techniques such as these. The layman's term for this computational analysis is often coined as Monte Carlo Simulations.

I'm not saying BMC didn't do a computer model. I'd suspect that their use of compute power was not to discover some magic carbon ply layup in seeking a nano performance increase. After all, most force vector variables for something as simple as a bicycle frame are simple to quantify and design for as well as the peak force variables being of managebly low intensity. This is a bicycle, not a Formula1 carbon monocoque or a bridge structure.

One practical use to BMC to computer model is to determine efficiencies as to their most effective use of carbon ply material in manufacturing as far cutting the patterns for the least waste of pre-preg material. Each new model frame requires a new & different pattern to form into a frame.

I could be wrong about this, but if I'm off, I'll wager not by much. A little knowledge is dangerous.;) And marketing guys do what marketing guys do.

PS noted that MadRocketSci hit on monte carlo sim while I was writing this. Alright! Revenge of the nerds!

[Mark McM]

I agree, however, metal tube sets are more limited in their layup, as it were. Sure, they can be double-butted or what have you, but a CF frame designer can rather quickly model/test whether adding an extra layer of CF across a specific section of the frame adds a certain desirable property, eg stiffness or vibration dampening.

Then the advantage of carbon fiber is the greater variability in design parameters, not in the ability to do computer simulations. Afterall, if you analyzed minute variations in all the metal tube design parameters (lengths, angles, outer diameters, wall thicknesses, butt thicknesses and lengths, swaging & tapering, ovalization, etc.), you could easily come up with 34,000 permutations.

[buddybikes]

4,000 possible frame configurations.....

For the "average" person. Weigh less, over designed.

Firefly (as I am sure Crumpton and others) tweek ENVE tube requirements for the individual rider.

Could easily be done by the big boys for pros, but then their frames wouldn't look like what they sell out of the molds. perhaps put some fake facing on them?

[mtechnica]

And we all know most frame builders are also software developers in their spare time.

You don't have to be a software developer to run a simulation in solidworks, or similar processes in similar software. You do, however, need to have a very good understanding of mechanical engineering fundamentals as well as the desire to spend time learning the software. I can do these things and I'll be the first to say I know very very little about programming itself.

This does raise an interesting point though, on one hand you have traditional frame builders making metal frames and on the other hand there are mechanical engineers making frames with the latest manufacturing technology and modeling software. Not that traditional frame builders are irrelevant by any means, but if I were to start building frames TODAY I would start with composites, even 'in the garage' without advanced machinery.

Using software to optimize layups is helpful but the computer is somewhat limited by the parameters given, and is unlikely to come up with any kind of novel solution, which is why maybe next year's frame is better than this year's frame even though they reached theoretical optimization previously.

As far as applying optimization techniques to metal, cannondale is a good example. Also, it's not difficult to design a metal frame (using software) that is impossible to actually produce.

[MadRocketSci]

And we all know most frame builders are also software developers in their spare time.

Kinda like Kasparov vs. Deep Blue. One uses human intelligence, intuition, and experience to arrive at a solution, the other uses raw computational speed to rack and stack every possible permutation. From what i'm reading here it's 1997 all over again.

I ride a round tubed aluminium Peg. It works good (enough).

[marciero]

You don't have to be a software developer to run a simulation in solidworks, or similar processes in similar software. You do, however, need to have a very good understanding of mechanical engineering fundamentals as well as the desire to spend time learning the software. I can do these things and I'll be the first to say I know very very little about programming itself...

...Using software to optimize layups is helpful but the computer is somewhat limited by the parameters given, and is unlikely to come up with any kind of novel solution, which is why maybe next year's frame is better than this year's frame even though they reached theoretical optimization previously.




Good points. One need not be a programmer. On the other hand, some software packages are quite amenable to adaptation, so a little programming can overcome limitations of "canned" software packages where one merely specifies predetermined parameters. Building the model is key, and requires a mix of talents-math, computer, engineering- or perhaps a team.

[54ny77]

This guy ran optimal frame design through a TRS-80. Sadly, the CPU went up in smoke halfway through the bb stiffness calcs.

http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s45/specialed_bucket/uglybike.jpg

[MadRocketSci]

the custom builder of the future - trained a bit to understand and run structural analysis/design programs, so that he/she can input customer parameters in body measurements, intended uses, desires into models. Create monte carlo simulation in batch mode if necessary, otherwise use the one already provided by the developer. Press a button to launch analysis and go do something else. Come back, look at results, pick some interesting cases, examine specific case results, set up another refined set of runs if necessary, run, come back, interpret output to arrive at "optimal" design (this is the value of the "builder"). Then, input specifications for frame into 3D graphene printer, wa-la, inspect/xray it for defects, box it up, send to robotic painter/finisher, go for a ride.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/2333275-3d-systems-3-d-printing-and-graphene-the-next-big-thing

[Happy F]

I’d like to respond to some of the comments made on my observations on crashing in the tour.
I am not a follower of Ludd (Luddite). I embrace new technology that works. I use technology when bikefitting, such as a 10-camera motion capture system, force plates, EMG, Pedar, EKG, Pulse Ox ,Spin Scan, VO2 Testing, and others.
Yes to the accusation that I am an old guy and not as fast as I used to be, I am also not as skinny. If you live long enough, you too can be an OG.
As to not embracing carbon. I think it is full of potential —I work with it and other composites all the time .
I am waiting for production costs to come down so that more sizes will be available to fit more cyclists properly.
To the claim that I don’t like stock framesets. Not true — I own both. I just don’t like to see people riding when they are uncomfortable, inefficient, and unsafe. I’m not a fan of riding on the wheel of people who can’t hold their line. I’m even more annoyed if it’s because the bike doesn’t fit.
Stem length and rise affect sizing, but they also alter handling characteristics and in conjunction with bars affect the volume of air (tidal flow).
So why do I care about other people’s fit. Self-preservation. It sucks when you get taken down by someone else. If the front or back wheel has too much weight on it in a corner you become a road hazard. If it’s wet out even worse. See this year’s TDF.
So to recap – I like carbon, like stock frames. I dislike seeing people on bikes as moving road hazards, including the pros.
As to Christopher Froome, his position seems to work for him. If it ain’t broken don’t fix it.

Happy Freedman
Orthotic Consultant
Bike Fitting Specialist
Prosthetics and Orthotics/DME
Hospital for Special Surgery
510 East 73rd Street, Suite 201

[Ti Designs]

If you live long enough, you too can be an OG.


No thanks.