What the hell is "ride quality"

[sandyrs]

A number of recent threads have gotten me thinking about this. People here seem to talk about "ride quality" like it's a single trait that a given bike (usually the frame specifically) can achieve on a one-dimensional scale, orthogonal to handling or responsiveness. This is where the idea is lost on me. The sum of a bike that is enjoyable to ride has to include at least:

1) How it feels via your hands over bumps/cracks
2) How it feels via your butt over bumps/cracks
3) How it feels to pedal while you're in the saddle
4) How it feels to sprint
5) How stable or not it feels in turns
6) How stable or not it feels in a straight line

The list goes on... and on. All of these things can be different at different speeds too (for example, my Merckx Team SC was awesome when hammering over bad pavement but I never liked doing easy rides on it).

I would never say a bike that feels comfortable (whatever that means) via the bars and saddle but is all over the place when climbing out of the saddle or descending rides "well" because the overall experience of riding the bike is unpleasant. But if I understand the idea of "ride quality" correctly, then that bike would be said to have good ride quality because those are handling problems, not ride quality problems. Is ride quality synonymous with comfort when you're riding the bike easy? If it is, why is there a separate term that connotes an overall positive experience if it only refers to one component of a bike that one enjoys riding?

What I'm ultimately asking is this: what do you (as in you, a specific person reading this) mean when you talk about ride quality? Is this a single trait or a composite of many? How do you determine the ride quality of a given bike?

[Tickdoc]

Such a subjective multilayered thing.
Smoothness over bumps, connectedness when under power, snappiness when you jump, smoothness of drivetrain in both action and feel.

You take fifty or so ingredients and cook them all up. It takes just the right combination to make something spectacular, imo.

[Peter P.]

You have to look at the term as how it's used in the sentence or paragraph.

I agree that it can mean many things but I can usually decipher what meaning it has by reading the rest of the article.

[Dead Man]

My own non-expert bike/frame criteria:

Geo - what position will i be in?
Stiffness - how much lateral flex?
Weight - obvious
Ride quality - dampening, somewhat, i guess? But even that term doesnt describe overall ride quality. A stiff carbon bike will dampen, but could still beat your crotch up. This is how much punishment or pleasure i can expect to my perineum. A bike can be stiff and not beat my ass up.. A bike can be soft and still beat my ass up.. So we need this kinda vague term to isolate that kinna probably aggregate effect

I suspect most people use and think of the term the same way

[OtayBW]

Ride quality is a high score on 'The Flying Index'...

[mattsbeers]

I know it when I feel it.

[eddief]

kinda like the sound of the word "orthogonal." Planing doesn't sound as funny, but I think it is a synonym for ride quality. My Carver = gestalt = an organized whole that is perceived as more than the sum of its parts.

[thattallasiangu]

How does it feel?

[Louis]

You know you have a quality ride when you can feel it planing.

[Matthew]

Sling a leg over a Moots!! You will know ride quality then. You are welcome. Matt

[nm87710]

What the hell is "ride quality"


Grasshopper,

One cannot figure it out by typing on a keyboard and staring at an LCD screen. Cycling is not an online sport - much to the chagrin of many. The more you ride the more you learn and understand the sport, the equipment, the people, the good, the bad and the ugly plus the finer nuances like ride quality. It takes many years and thousands upon thousands of hours of saddle time to become one with the bike. Only then you will understand "ride quality".

Good Luck on Your Journey
:)

[eddief]

I think to even use the words ride quality there is a minimum numbers of bikes you must have owned before uttering the words. For me the number was 33.

[sandyrs]

Grasshopper,

One cannot figure it out by typing on a keyboard and staring at an LCD screen. Cycling is not an online sport - much to the chagrin of many. The more you ride the more you learn and understand the sport, the equipment, the people, the good, the bad and the ugly plus the finer nuances like ride quality. It takes many years and thousands upon thousands of hours of saddle time to become one with the bike. Only then you will understand "ride quality".

Good Luck on Your Journey
:)

Alright Mr Miyagi, but did you actually read the post?

[sandyrs]

Sling a leg over a Moots!! You will know ride quality then. You are welcome. Matt

Sure, but my point is: why? What about your Moots makes you like riding it so much? Is it how well it handles? How it responds to stomping on the pedals? The way it glides over bad roads? I suspect it's a combination of a number of things. I am criticizing the collective practice of using unclear shorthand for this combination of traits, since the combination certainly changes between riders and applications.

[Matthew]

You are correct in that it is a number of things. First is fit. It simply feels right. It also is great at damping road buzz, it just feels really smooth. As far as stiffness goes it certainly could be stiffer, but I don't think it is a noodle either. It has a nice combination of all of the right traits for me. It's light enough stiff enough, and glides along on Michigan's crappy roads. In the end it just feels right. Hope this helps. Matt

[eddief]

descends like it's on rails and climbs like a mountain goat?

My Carver is in first place and my Roubaix is in second. The Carver seems to handle road buzz (crap seal) really well, is light enough so it seems to climb respectably, and fits like a damn glove. It also sports 28 mm tires so it is the best overall "road quality" of any I've owned.

The Roubaix is not quite so buttery over the rough stuff, only takes 25 mm tires, but is at least a couple of pounds lighter, seemingly is stiffer all around. And due to those factors, the "ride quality" in most respects matches the Carver, but it does "seem" faster and a better climber due to carbonation and less weight.

I am not much of a racer, so high speed descending commentary is for guys without a combover.

Sure, but my point is: why? What about your Moots makes you like riding it so much? Is it how well it handles? How it responds to stomping on the pedals? The way it glides over bad roads? I suspect it's a combination of a number of things. I am criticizing the collective practice of using unclear shorthand for this combination of traits, since the combination certainly changes between riders and applications.

[sandyrs]

descends like it's on rails and climbs like a mountain goat?

My Carver is in first place and my Roubaix is in second. The Carver seems to handle road buzz (crap seal) really well, is light enough so it seems to climb respectably, and fits like a damn glove. It also sports 28 mm tires so it is the best overall "road quality" of any I've owned.

The Roubaix is not quite so buttery over the rough stuff, only takes 25 mm tires, but is at least a couple of pounds lighter, seemingly is stiffer all around. And due to those factors, the "ride quality" in most respects matches the Carver, but it does "seem" faster and a better climber due to carbonation and less weight.

I am not much of a racer, so high speed descending commentary is for guys without a combover.

Haha. Those are at least sort of specific!

But yeah, these are the kind of description of like. Cheers!

[numbskull]

Whatever it is you sure miss it on rollers

[MattTuck]

Sandy, pushing the bleeding edge of cycling cultural thought by questioning the very definition of this foundational concept.

Not sure that I have an answer, I do have some additional thoughts.

Is ride quality a characteristic of a frame or a complete bike?

Let's make no mistake that saddles and tires can make a huge difference in how a given frame rides. So, unless you take a very scientific approach to comparing two frames, it is hard to mentally decompose and attribute 'ride quality' to specific components and the frame.

That being said, I think that you also need to layer it on top of an ideal position for a rider, and a good geometry and application of that position in the completed bike.

So, now we have several aspects of a 'bike' that are quite distinct from the frame. Therefor, the frame itself cannot (by definition) be the fundamental unit of ride quality -- but can be a component of it.

If we think of it in terms of formula, let's go with the following:

RQb = Position + Frame + Balance + Components + Intangibles

Looking at this, it is obvious that these terms are not measured in the same units. So, this is a multidimensional equation in probably 5 or more axes. If you can imagine just 3 axes, a given frame could put you in a certain point in 3D space. Then, depending on the components you select and position you put the rider in using those components and frame, you could expand that point into a 3D space that would represent a range of all possible ride qualities that are possible to achieve with that frame. The frontier of that space is where the ride quality is at the maximum. But, you could also (by picking bad components, for example) more away from the frontier. When you select a given set of components and position, you have then selected a point in space that is your ride quality.

Now, you'd ideally be at the frontier of ride quality -- meaning everything on the bike was working together to achieve the best ride quality possible given that combination of components, frame, position, etc.

If you are still reading, thanks for sticking with me thus far. Not really sure where to go from here, but I think the implication of this model for ride quality is that bikes that riders exclaim, "ride quality is awesome" must be near the frontier -- in other words, all of the components are working together achieve the very best out of a bike.

[marciero]

If we think of it in terms of formula, let's go with the following:

RQb = Position + Frame + Balance + Components + Intangibles

Looking at this, it is obvious that these terms are not measured in the same units. So, this is a multidimensional equation in probably 5 or more axes.

Since no units have been defined for any of these it is also true (vacuously) that they all DO have the same units!
In fact, they need not have numerical attributes at all. We are talking about ride quality after all. So, for example, position could be assigned a color, frame a letter, and so on. Or maybe each is assigned a primary color, and we blend them together at the end. That may make more sense than adding as vectors and maximizing the norm (sort of what was described) which would in fact give the same result as simply scoring each and adding as numbers.

[sjbraun]

It's really quite simple, a bike that puts a smile on your face is one that has good ride quality.

[MattTuck]

Since no units have been defined for any of these it is also true (vacuously) that they all DO have the same units!
In fact, they need not have numerical attributes at all. We are talking about ride quality after all. So, for example, position could be assigned a color, frame a letter, and so on. Or maybe each is assigned a primary color, and we blend them together at the end. That may make more sense than adding as vectors and maximizing the norm (sort of what was described) which would in fact give the same result as simply scoring each and adding as numbers.

But some can be reduced to a unit. a frame does have characteristics that can measured, torsional rigidity, weight, flex, etc. And tires can also be quantified in terms of thread count, rolling resistance -- and perhaps more qualitatively as well. Now, one way to normalize units (rather than a multidimensional space) could be to just take each component's measure as a percent of some maximum attainable value. So, for position, you could theoretically determine an optimal rider position and then determine how close a position is achieved on the relevant bicycle, and take that percentage as a term in the equation.

Doing this, you'd divide the whole right side of the equation by the number of terms, and then look for a value closest to 100%. Then, it raises a deeper question -- do the various terms need to be weighted? and, if so, are the weightings the same for every rider, or do different riders weight the various terms differently?

THAT, is another level of complexity in this model. But it is fun to think about.

[kittytrail]

It's really quite simple, a bike that puts a smile on your face is one that has good ride quality.

i would add a bike that lets you forget you're on it and lets you enjoy the ride without thinking about anything "bike related".

the more you smile, the better the bike and its ride quality are. numbers be damned! ;)

[bcroslin]

It's kind of like "suppleness" in tires whatever the hell that is.

[Macadamia]

a nonsense catchall to justify the reason they spent x dollars on a bike

if you read this forum much you'll notice that ride quality(or quality in general) and price are directly correlated, in frames, groupsets, tires, wheels, clothing...

is there a term for stockholm syndrome, but for an inanimate object you've convinced yourself is good/better than all other cheaper/similar objects?

[happycampyer]

This is simply not true. As an example, I prefer the ride quality--such as I perceive it--of the standard Vamoots over the Vamoots RSL, and the RSL costs over 50% more than the standard Vamoots. For many, the standard for ride quality is a classic steel bike, which costs a lot less to acquire than most modern bikes.

[Mark McM]

The definition of "ride quality" depends on how many column inches a magazine editor has fill in a bike review.

[johnniecakes]

Ride quality is about the experience not the machine. Some tend to focus on what is missing on their machine instead of the smile on their face. It is all about doing what you enjoy. A day on any bike is better than most other things we could be doing.

[paredown]

I'm almost tempted to substitute 'personality' for ride quality. There are an infinite number and some attract us more than others.

I have been on bikes that were more Porsche GT3, and others that were more like a good Toyota.

Preference? Depends on my mood--but once the basics of fit, position, the right saddle/cockpit are taken care of, I'm leaning more to comfort. Not too plush, not too dampened but I'm past the point where I need racing geo and the kind of crispness so you can ride over a dime and tell whether heads or tails was facing up.

[David Kirk]

To me "ride quality" is the all feedback the rider gets from the bike as a whole. It is affected by all kinds of things - not necessarily in this order -

- frame fit
- frame geometry (steering and weight placement)
- frame material and tube diameters (the two are intimately related) and to a lessor extent tubing wall thickness
- if the frame is metal then the hardness of the material
- components used especially rims, spoke pattern, tire width, tire casing, tire air pressure and inner tube material/thickness

If one changes just one major variable (not 28 vs 32 spokes or 100 psi vs 105 psi) and leaves everything else the same most in-tune riders can feel the difference in that change. When you one starts changing more than one major variable drawing any conclusions can be very tough and misleading.

One thing that can really throw a wrench in the works is the rider's sensitivity to different things. I've known riders that can tell if you increase the air pressure by 5 psi within 100 feet of getting on the bike and others that didn't notice that they had a slow leak and the tire was nearly flat with the rim just a few millimeters from the pavement. People, and the way they perceive and feel things, can be drastically different and neither one is wrong.......but neither one is right either. So when I hear someone say that their 1990 Klein rides like butter and that anyone that disagrees is just being silly I just shake my head. It's cool that the Klein owner loves his bike but he needs to realize that others might feel, and value, different things and that what is good for the goose ins't necessarily good for the gander.

dave

[eddief]

Brussels sprouts and some hate them. Genetically predisposed to many things. On the other hand, growing up I hated mustard and now I love it. 35 bikes can you learn you a lot about liking and not liking stuff.

[Elefantino]

Hating mustard is un-American.

Glad you are now a patriot. :D

[etu]

To me "ride quality" is the all feedback the rider gets from the bike as a whole. It is affected by all kinds of things - not necessarily in this order -

- frame fit
- frame geometry (steering and weight placement)
- frame material and tube diameters (the two are intimately related) and to a lessor extent tubing wall thickness
- if the frame is metal then the hardness of the material
- components used especially rims, spoke pattern, tire width, tire casing, tire air pressure and inner tube material/thickness

If one changes just one major variable (not 28 vs 32 spokes or 100 psi vs 105 psi) and leaves everything else the same most in-tune riders can feel the difference in that change. When you one starts changing more than one major variable drawing any conclusions can be very tough and misleading.

One thing that can really throw a wrench in the works is the rider's sensitivity to different things. I've known riders that can tell if you increase the air pressure by 5 psi within 100 feet of getting on the bike and others that didn't notice that they had a slow leak and the tire was nearly flat with the rim just a few millimeters from the pavement. People, and the way they perceive and feel things, can be drastically different and neither one is wrong.......but neither one is right either. So when I hear someone say that their 1990 Klein rides like butter and that anyone that disagrees is just being silly I just shake my head. It's cool that the Klein owner loves his bike but he needs to realize that others might feel, and value, different things and that what is good for the goose ins't necessarily good for the gander.

dave

Thanks Dave!
I count myself among the moderately sensitive. I've learned this past year that even a moderate rear load (large saddle bag) really dampen and deaden the ride of even my liveliest bike.
Also recently I've been on the fence about my Meivici GS as it's just not very inspiring which I attribute to it's stiffness. I've really come to appreciate what many of us know - wheels can make a big difference. I went from a nice set of c24 clinchers which were good to 32 spoke tubulars with aluminum rims which were also fine to Zipp 404 which were bad to Hyperons which were also blah. Today I am using Reynolds 32s which I was planning to sell and are rather flexy and wow, I think I found a good match! The ride quality was transformed into what I like. It's a subjective and complex concept with known factors and individual sensitivities, but when you find the right range it sure makes riding more enjoyable.

[happycampyer]

"Blah" isn't the first word I think the of when it comes to Hyperons, but that just goes to show how subjective all this stuff is.

[etu]

Definitely. Hyperons ride great on the Legend which is a bit more compliant, but I think they push the Meivici a little too far in the stiffness range. It's counterintuitive that the more responsive wheel actually made the ride less response for me. There is definitely a happy medium here. I could be splitting hairs and of course YMMV.
The process is a lot fun. A little like wine-tasting, although I haven't been up to a winery Napa in the past decade.

[El Chaba]

I think Dave Kirk did a great job of describing the hard to quantify quality....I have a related observation. Good ride quality was once something that was sought after by riders and makers alike, but has largely gon by the wayside. When you consider the various factors that Dave describes, good ride quality is the result of a BALANCE being struck among those factors. With most of today's bikes all sense of balance is lost...The maker goes after stiffness at all cost....or lightness at all cost....or aerodynamics at all cost, etc.....The art has been lost....

[merckx]

Dave, can you elaborate on the topic of metal hardness, and the influence it has on ride quality? Is the difference between metal hardness related to its ability to damp vibration?

[David Kirk]

Dave, can you elaborate on the topic of metal hardness, and the influence it has on ride quality? Is the difference between metal hardness related to its ability to damp vibration?

I all boils down to how the material transmits vibration and the frequency of that vibration.

Let's say we take a wooden dowel and a steel tube that have the same stiffness (due to diameter and material properties) and hang them from one end like a wind chime. Now take something like a metal rod and give the tube a whack and listen to the way the two tubes respond. One will ring (steel) and one will make a thunk (wood). If two bikes were made of these materials that had the same stiffness they would give a different feel due to their tendency to transmit vibration.

This analogy falls down in a few ways but gets the idea across. If you take a bunch of tubes of different hardnesses (but with the same diameter and wall) and hang them like wind chimes and ring them they will all sound different. A tube made of 531 will have a mild ring and a tube made of 953 will have a much brighter and high pitched ring......and an aluminum tube will have more of a 'thunk'.

Many can feel this 'brightness' on the road. It's not necessarily better or worse but it is different and people tend to prefer one over the other if they compare them back to back.

This has been my experience and I first noted it back in the day when building bikes for the first time out of heat treated Tange Prestige and then later 853. Compared to old school 531 or Columbus SL the bikes had more feedback and for the most part it was a good thing.

I hope that makes sense.

dave

[merckx]

Thank you, Dave. It makes perfect sense, your explanation is clear.

[martl]

Let's say we take a wooden dowel and a steel tube that have the same stiffness (due to diameter and material properties) and hang them from one end like a wind chime. Now take something like a metal rod and give the tube a whack and listen to the way the two tubes respond. One will ring (steel) and one will make a thunk (wood). If two bikes were made of these materials that had the same stiffness they would give a different feel due to their tendency to transmit vibration.

I understand this. But a bike is not just a frame, it is an assembly of things. What if we clamped both, the wooden dowel and the steel tube in clamps that have a hard rubber layer on the contact point? In fact, to alter the tone of the steel tube, just holding a finger to it is sufficient to change the tone completely - which is "dampening" it.

The physical laws say that a chain of springs (which is a bicycle in that context) will be dominated by the softest spring in the chain, which isn't the frame. All other parts - tire, wheel, stem, saddle, seatpost, fork, handlebar - will be "softer springs". So while i do personally sense the difference between a tire inflated to 8 bar and one of 7 bar, between different forks, between a 26,4mm and an 31.8 handlebar or seatpost, i seriously doubt there is actually any "ride quality" or "comfort" to be gained by altering a vertically stiffer frame for a softer one.

What numbers are wee talking about? There is an analytical approach towards this available at http://eprints.brighton.ac.uk/13976/1/1-s2.0-S1877705814005931-main.pdf. (These fellas are working on a system which will tell you which mix of available frame tubes will give you which desired frame characteristics)
In it, it is calculated using FEM that the vertical displacement of the BB of a lugged steel frame under a load of 2400N (equivalent to 3x a grown man's weight and about what happens when a rider weighting 75kg hits a pothole) is less than .4 of a Millimeter. This could be altered by 10-15% by using different tubing, giving us a range of 0.36-0.44mm. I can dent a tire with 120psi farther with my finger.

In comparison: A handlebar will have a displacement of five times that (up to 2mm) under a similar load.

Yep, a CFK frame will have different dampening characteristics than a Klein. But one can only dampen what swings in the first place. An alteration of the oscillation (=dampening) as minimal as that of a diamond frame makes no difference for actual "comfort", in my opinion. It is measurable in the frame alone, it is not measurable on a built up bike, the guys from the test lab of german "tour" magazine admit underhandedly - and not for lack of trying, that magazine is very vocal in advocating "comfy" bikes.

I could probably build a very comfortable bike from an incredibly stiff frame with parts of my choice, and vice versa a very harsh ride from one of those state-of-the-art comfort racing bike frames as long as they are diamond shape and without active suspension.

That it isn't measurable whether your bum gets matreated by a "comfy" or a "stiff" frame doesn't mean one can tell no difference at all. Cycling is an all-senses experience. One *hears* the tones, one *feels* the response of the BB - all that is true, and it gets mingled up to a general impression. One knows typically on which bike one is, certain frames have certain images (say Moots and Klein).
And we haven't even talked about geometry or positioning/bike fit yet. One may not feel a saddle mounted .5mm deeper or higher than usual on a 5mls test run, but one might feel it after a double century...

[josephr]

To me....bikes are so subjective that to pick a 'best' sort of diminishes the qualities of everything else....sort of like wine, BBQ, cars, etc....there's not just a "one"...the best bike is the one that you're on.

[David Kirk]

I hear you - interesting stuff. I tried to address the "complete bike" picture in my previous post ( http://forums.thepaceline.net/showpost.php?p=1903349&postcount=30 ) and couldn't agree more that one can't isolate a frame when all the other stuff contributes greatly to the overall feel.

dave




I understand this. But a bike is not just a frame, it is an assembly of things. What if we clamped both, the wooden dowel and the steel tube in clamps that have a hard rubber layer on the contact point? In fact, to alter the tone of the steel tube, just holding a finger to it is sufficient to change the tone completely - which is "dampening" it.

The physical laws say that a chain of springs (which is a bicycle in that context) will be dominated by the softest spring in the chain, which isn't the frame. All other parts - tire, wheel, seatpost, fork, handlebar - will be "softer springs". So while i do personally sense the difference between a tire inflated to 8 bar and one of 7 bar, i seriously doubt there is actually any "ride quality" or "comfort" to be gained by altering a vertically stiffer frame for a softer one.

What numbers are wee talking about? There is an analytical approach towards this available at http://eprints.brighton.ac.uk/13976/1/1-s2.0-S1877705814005931-main.pdf. In it, the vertical displacement of the BB under a load of 2400N (equivalent to 3x a grown man's weight) is less than .4 of a Millimeter. This could be altered by 10-15% by using different tubing.

In comparison: A handlebar will have a displacement of five times that (up to 2mm) under a similar load.

Yep, a CFK frame will have different dampening characteristics than a Klein. But one can only dampen what swings in the first place. An alteration of the oscillation (=dampening) as minimal as that of a diamond frame imo makes no difference for actual "comfort", in my opinion. It is measurable in the frame alone, it is not measurable on a built up bike, the guys from the test lab of german "tour" magazine admit underhandedly - and not for lack of trying, that magazine is very vocal in advocating "comfy" bikes.

I could probably build a very comfortable bike from an incredibly stiff frame with parts of my choice, and vice versa a very harsh ride from one of those state-of-the-art comfort racing bike frames as long as they are diamond shape and without active suspension.

That it isn't measurable whether your bum gets matreated by a "comfy" or a "stiff" frame doesn't mean one can tell no difference at all. Cycling is an all-senses experience. One *hears* the tones, one *feels* the response of the BB - all that is true, and it gets mingled up to a general impression. One knows typically on which bike one is, certain frames have certain images (say Moots and Klein).
And we haven't even talked about geometry or positioning(bike fit yet. One may not feel a saddle mounted .5mm deeper or higher than usual on a 5mls test run, but one might feel it after a dauble century...

[19wisconsin64]

If those words apply to the bicycle you are riding then you are there.

Proper bike fitting, and a proper bike that makes you happy for the style of cycling you do are the two things that come to mind first.

My track racing bike is all dialed in--strong, stiff, light, accelerates like crazy, perfect immediate handling, aerodynamic, and easy to change gears between races. It's made of carbon fiber, like most of the parts on it.

My road bike glides and has a great sense of flow / Zen / pace. It's a vintage steel ride with almost all alloy vintage parts from the mid 80's.

Your question is a good one, and while some bikes you get used to, the best bikes for you are the ones you'll know are amazing from the first time you ride it. Every pedal turn is a joy on your magic carpet ride bike.

[rugbysecondrow]

It's really quite simple, a bike that puts a smile on your face is one that has good ride quality.

Exactly.

Quality is, by definition, vague. You might as well question why somebody describes their bike as "beautiful" or "gorgeous". Everybody can fabricate a definition, but it won't be true in any sort of absolute way.

Simple Definition of Quality:

: how good or bad something is
: a characteristic or feature that someone or something has
: something that can be noticed as a part of a person or thing
: a high level of value or excellence


a nonsense catchall to justify the reason they spent x dollars on a bike

if you read this forum much you'll notice that ride quality(or quality in general) and price are directly correlated, in frames, groupsets, tires, wheels, clothing...

is there a term for stockholm syndrome, but for an inanimate object you've convinced yourself is good/better than all other cheaper/similar objects?

Your world makes me sad.

[Mark McM]

I This analogy falls down in a few ways but gets the idea across. If you take a bunch of tubes of different hardnesses (but with the same diameter and wall) and hang them like wind chimes and ring them they will all sound different. A tube made of 531 will have a mild ring and a tube made of 953 will have a much brighter and high pitched ring......and an aluminum tube will have more of a 'thunk'.

Many can feel this 'brightness' on the road. It's not necessarily better or worse but it is different and people tend to prefer one over the other if they compare them back to back.

This has been my experience and I first noted it back in the day when building bikes for the first time out of heat treated Tange Prestige and then later 853. Compared to old school 531 or Columbus SL the bikes had more feedback and for the most part it was a good thing.

Many riders claim they can feel these differences, but can they really? We can't really be sure unless they do some form of blind testing. Blind testing of bike frames isn't easy, but those test that have been done have shown that riders really can't discern much difference between frames or tube sets.

The most famous example of a blind test between metal (steel) tubesets is from Alan Cote's article in Bicycle Guide (http://www.habcycles.com/m7.html). More recently, a member of the SlowTwitch forum did a blind test to confirm whether he could really tell the difference between his Cervelo R3 standard (carbon) road bike and his Cervelo S3 aero (carbon) road bike (http://forum.slowtwitch.com/cgi-bin/gforum.cgi?post=5338055). (Before the test he was pretty sure he could. After the test, he was pretty sure he couldn't). Other blind tests have had similar results.

Expectations have a strong influence on human perception an many times we believe that we can perceive things that we really can't. I suspect that the 'brightness' of metal tubes falls into this area.