#76
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
And imagine a modern rider doing a Jacque Anquetil: "To prepare for a race there is nothing better than a good pheasant, some champagne and a woman." And call me confused. Are people arguing if newer bikes are faster than older bikes? Last edited by vespasianus; 10-24-2020 at 04:15 PM. |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
Yes, it's all relative. A 14% increase from 7mph to 8mph isn't that much, but a 14% increase from 21.5mph to 24.5mph, is a bigger deal.
|
#78
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
With athletics, you can always wonder about things. For example, how would Merckx or Fausto Coppi be on a modern bike? At the same time, if the modern racers were asked to ride a bike from 1952, how fast would they be (say in something like Liège–Bastogne–Liège). |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
That's my point.
|
#80
|
|||
|
|||
To bring back frame design and like materials. Over my years I have built my own prototypes and ridden many Moots prototypes and I found some significant differences in bikes depending on geometry and to a lesser extent materials.
In the late 80's at Co-Motion I built a frame out of Reynolds 653. This was a 753 rear triangle, a 653 main frame and a 531 fork. I built it with really short chainstays, 395?, and a 75 degree seat angle and I think a 74 head. Very light steel frame, especially rear triangle and a short wheelbase. I was reasonably fit, could sprint pretty well. That bike would jump all over the place in a sprint. I believe that was a combo of geo and light materials. After I crashed hard in a race I rode a Columbus SL frame we had built for stock that had 73 parallel angles and 410 chainstays?. The differences between the two was crazy. The 653 frame was a climbing bike and the SL frame was way better for all around. Noticeably heavier but... At 21 years at Moots we built a lot of test mules to try different bb's, tubesets and geometries for several different models. The differences were often noticeable. Pretty much all of the time the application and the rider fit were what separated the feel. These were stock frames we worked on. Once it goes to custom, good builders know how to hit the sweet spot for a particular rider. Biggest difference you can make with bike feel past fit IMO is wheels I think the "science" behind all of this is "build it ride it" |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
^^This x 1000^^
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
#82
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
My point was: If a frame designed by those wizards from Giant or Specialized gave you dozens of watts advantage, it would be noticeable in race results, as that would amount to 10-20% of the average power output even in a pro race. EPO gave you around 5% and that resulted in 1-2-3 solo finishes by certain "pioneer" teams.... *Mapei* *cough* Let me make this clear: With no amount of trickery is it possible to design a frame that gives dozens of Watts difference over a state of the art frame made 20 years ago, or even one made from lugged SLX. Not in the wind tunnel, not in the structure design, not in the material selection.*) Everyone telling you otherwise is a bull**** merchant trying to sell you stuff, or has no idea what he's talking about. *) if you feel otherwise, i'm open to arguments and happy to discuss how that can be achieved. Invalid answers include "i saw an ad with a guy in a labcoat and a picture of a bike in a wind tunnel" and "a guy who spent 12000$ on a Speci told me it was faster than his old ride"
__________________
Jeremy Clarksons bike-riding cousin Last edited by martl; 10-26-2020 at 02:27 AM. |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
Need to re-name this thread- the watts thread.
|
#84
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
If everything is aero, nothing is aero. Again, this is a sport won or lost by millimeters at the line.... |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
Is there any real difference in how a bike rides between TIG, fillet brazed, and lugged construction?
|
#86
|
||||
|
||||
No. As long as the tubes are all the same.
__________________
Cheers...Daryl Life is too important to be taken seriously |
#87
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
Cheers...Daryl Life is too important to be taken seriously |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
Yup. And even then, all the bike brands can do is stack up the possible lab test advantages in their favor, and they might still get beaten by an 'old tech' rim brake bike in the sprint after 300k.
|
#89
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Its hard to tell the difference from pictures how a Moots rides vs a frame from Joe Welder. But this comment does show that there is a science to what is an optimal frame angle + frame material that an experienced builder has prototyped and tested. |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Just who is claiming that a frame cane save dozens of Watts of power? I think you are mis-representing the aero bike power savings that are being claimed. Generally, claims will be made for power savings of aero bicycles - which includes not just the frame, but also the wheels, the handlebar, stem, seatpost, etc. The aerodynamic drag differences between entirely different bicycles can be dozens of Watts - even if the savings of the frame alone is much less. Your comments that the claimed power savings of aero bikes can't be true because of the relatively low average power during an entire race is also a mis-representation. Savings of dozens of Watts are only claimed under certain conditions - for example, in still air at 30 mph. Nobody is claiming that you'll have anywhere near dozens of Watts of power savings under typical riding conditions (which would drafting in pack when racing, or at lower speeds when not racing). So when does the power savings of an aero bike make a significant difference? Under short duration but critical race situations, such as breaking away solo or with a small group, or in a final sprint. The rest of the time there are still real power savings, just much smaller. |
|
|