Cloozoe
03-25-2017, 09:13 AM
To begin, I suppose I should introduce myself. My name's Len, I've been lurking around here for a bit, but have never posted; primarily because I don't know that I have anything significant to contribute on the one hand, and most questions can be answered with a bit of searching on the other.
A place called "Paceline Forum" is, I suppose, an inappropriate hangout for me, as the only way you'd find me riding in a paceline is if the guy behind me had a gun pointed at my head; a large caliber gun. But, hey - what's in a name.
The riding I do do is almost invariably solo, a typical ride being 15-20 miles, executed as hard and fast as I can push myself. I ride more days than not, including throughout the winter, although admittedly less frequently. I occasionally treat myself to a mellow sight-seeing kind of ride, and under those circumstances might find myself covering 40 miles or so. Centuries? See above regarding the large gun.
To return to hands: on the one, I have no interest in the search for the "best" bicycle -- much less other people's search for same -- as I regard the object of such a search as a chimera and hence the search itself an exercise in futility at best, and at worst a consumerist obsessive/compulsive disorder. Nor do I have much interest in descriptions/photographs of someone's newest toy (invariably described as the finest bicycle they've ever owned and invariably for sale shortly thereafter). On the infrequent occasion that I treat myself to a new toy, I've got even less interest in boasting about it publicly.
What does interest me, in addition to getting in the saddle and going for a ride, is bicycle mechanics and physics. I'm a fair country mechanic and wheel-builder and if pressed as to which I enjoy more, riding or fiddling, I'd have to call it about a draw.
As to physics, I've concluded that the variables of the bicycle/rider interface are so close to infinite and so subtle as to preclude most people having anything cogent to say; certainly precludes me and certainly-certainly precludes the legions who inhabit bicycle fora who confidently assert that this is great, that is junk, carbon is this, steel is that...I'm a data-head and have no time for what people think they know when they clearly know very little. I don't disdain them for knowing very little --I know very little-- but I try to have the good grace and good sense not to pontificate about that which I know not enough.
Enough of that.
I've recently become intrigued by the possibilities inherent in mixed-material frames, specifically ti-carbon. The notion of capitalizing on the strengths and minimizing the weaknesses of the respective materials (assuming one could identify/reach consensus on said strengths and weaknesses; but let that pass) strikes me as at least potentially viable and interesting. Also worth examination is the vibration filtering effect such a mix would create. The efficacy of mixed materials damping a wider frequency range than a single material would seem to be settled science (although it begs the question of whether the rider would like the resulting feel or not).
Checking out existing mixed ti-carbon frames, past and present, I was struck by the various approaches to execution in areas where I would have expected (foolishly) some consistency.
For example, the Serotta Ottrott, the first mixed-material frame I took a close look at, utilizes ti lugged carbon top and down tubes, but a ti seat tube. Fair enough, thought I; they concluded, empirically one would hope, that carbon worked well for top and down tubes, but less well for the specific requirements/stresses/what-have-you, of seat tubes. Then I encountered the Seven Cycles Elium SLX where they evidently concluded, empirically one would again hope, that carbon worked well for seat and top tubes; less well for down tubes.
In short, two presumably competent engineering staffs coming to two opposing conclusions regarding the desirability of utilizing carbon for seat tubes and down tubes.
While I've inferred one logical answer to this seeming conundrum, (i.e. they both work fine but Serotta thought a ti seat tube looked cool and Seven thought a ti down tube looked cool) I invite better informed commentary.
Thanks to the owners of the forum for allowing me to participate and to the readers of the foregoing for indulging my going on at such length.
A place called "Paceline Forum" is, I suppose, an inappropriate hangout for me, as the only way you'd find me riding in a paceline is if the guy behind me had a gun pointed at my head; a large caliber gun. But, hey - what's in a name.
The riding I do do is almost invariably solo, a typical ride being 15-20 miles, executed as hard and fast as I can push myself. I ride more days than not, including throughout the winter, although admittedly less frequently. I occasionally treat myself to a mellow sight-seeing kind of ride, and under those circumstances might find myself covering 40 miles or so. Centuries? See above regarding the large gun.
To return to hands: on the one, I have no interest in the search for the "best" bicycle -- much less other people's search for same -- as I regard the object of such a search as a chimera and hence the search itself an exercise in futility at best, and at worst a consumerist obsessive/compulsive disorder. Nor do I have much interest in descriptions/photographs of someone's newest toy (invariably described as the finest bicycle they've ever owned and invariably for sale shortly thereafter). On the infrequent occasion that I treat myself to a new toy, I've got even less interest in boasting about it publicly.
What does interest me, in addition to getting in the saddle and going for a ride, is bicycle mechanics and physics. I'm a fair country mechanic and wheel-builder and if pressed as to which I enjoy more, riding or fiddling, I'd have to call it about a draw.
As to physics, I've concluded that the variables of the bicycle/rider interface are so close to infinite and so subtle as to preclude most people having anything cogent to say; certainly precludes me and certainly-certainly precludes the legions who inhabit bicycle fora who confidently assert that this is great, that is junk, carbon is this, steel is that...I'm a data-head and have no time for what people think they know when they clearly know very little. I don't disdain them for knowing very little --I know very little-- but I try to have the good grace and good sense not to pontificate about that which I know not enough.
Enough of that.
I've recently become intrigued by the possibilities inherent in mixed-material frames, specifically ti-carbon. The notion of capitalizing on the strengths and minimizing the weaknesses of the respective materials (assuming one could identify/reach consensus on said strengths and weaknesses; but let that pass) strikes me as at least potentially viable and interesting. Also worth examination is the vibration filtering effect such a mix would create. The efficacy of mixed materials damping a wider frequency range than a single material would seem to be settled science (although it begs the question of whether the rider would like the resulting feel or not).
Checking out existing mixed ti-carbon frames, past and present, I was struck by the various approaches to execution in areas where I would have expected (foolishly) some consistency.
For example, the Serotta Ottrott, the first mixed-material frame I took a close look at, utilizes ti lugged carbon top and down tubes, but a ti seat tube. Fair enough, thought I; they concluded, empirically one would hope, that carbon worked well for top and down tubes, but less well for the specific requirements/stresses/what-have-you, of seat tubes. Then I encountered the Seven Cycles Elium SLX where they evidently concluded, empirically one would again hope, that carbon worked well for seat and top tubes; less well for down tubes.
In short, two presumably competent engineering staffs coming to two opposing conclusions regarding the desirability of utilizing carbon for seat tubes and down tubes.
While I've inferred one logical answer to this seeming conundrum, (i.e. they both work fine but Serotta thought a ti seat tube looked cool and Seven thought a ti down tube looked cool) I invite better informed commentary.
Thanks to the owners of the forum for allowing me to participate and to the readers of the foregoing for indulging my going on at such length.