Is real world data possible in bike testing?

[Clancy]

We have a LOT of entertaining discussion here about the wonders of titanium as a material for bicycle frames with virtually everyone touting its abilities to be all things to all people (tongue in cheek just a little bit)

And I freely admit I’m riding right along on that bandwagon. I currently own 3 Ti bikes and, for me, cannot imagine my main bike not being made out of titanium.

What I don’t see though is data as in a Consumer Reports style article. While there is data found in many publications regarding certain aspects of a frames qualities, flex, compliance, stiffness, etc., I’ve only see such in regards to carbon frames or when comparing carbon frames. The ones I’ve seen (read) always involve mounting a semi-stripped frame to a fixture and applying mechanical forces.

I’ve never seen such tests comparing different frame materials. May be out there but I’ve never seem them.

Additionally, I’ve never seen any data with regards to a bicycle’s riding qualities taken as a whole. Lots of subjective comments but no data as such.

All of this brings me to wonder if such tests are even possible. Is it possible to get hard, repeatable data on a frame qualities when tested as a complete bicycle in real world conditions? Is it possible to take a carbon frame from say Parlee, a steel frame from Ritte and a titanium frame from Moots, all with same group, wheels, tires and do a direct objective comparison using measurable, repeatable data?

And if this was at all possible, would it actually isolate the frame from all the other factors involved? Tire construction, psi, wheels, saddle rails, even handlebar tape.

When I read a company’s or frame makers description of a bespoke frame I often see such phrases as custom drawn tubing selected for riders weight, etc, etc, etc, etc. What I never see is any data attributed to different tubing when taken as a whole.

I’m not sure if my point is coming across but basically where’s the data and is comparative data even possible?

Or does the King really not have any clothes on and we are all just caught up in the hype?

[madsciencenow]

In a word it’s hype. This said I do believe that the custom builders can design a bike that will ride with a particular set of characteristics for a particular rider. Objectively, though what does this mean to someone else?

If there is an objective measurement that can be made/tested then yes, you could theoretically measure it but pretty much everything we talk about is subjective when you put it in the context of a bike frame and then further complicate objectivity by putting wheels, saddle, tires bar tape, rider etc on it to say nothing of the conditions the bike is being used for.

Further even the objective measures have to be qualified with how the test was performed or particular conditions, etc.

I think we all have reasons for riding what we do that we believe have some objective basis in being more this that or the other but relative to the next guy, who knows.

Riding for me is a way to stay fit, relax, and enjoy a community of people who have a similar interest. Therefore, I don’t need what I believe about my bike to be objectively verifiably true. I just need to have a smile on my face while riding and be motivated to get on the bikes I own.

Lots o rambling so I’ll stop now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[oldpotatoe]

In a word..no. Even if you could 'measure' things like deflection, bend, whatever on a complete bike..that doesn't translate into 'feel' or 'ride quality' for every rider.
I have told this story..

When at MorgulBismark, shop sponsored a bike team. 2 riders got EXACTLY the same bike(serotta ti frame, BTW-Classic, Concours(?), not Legends)..EXACTLY..they went out for a ride.

rider 1-Stiff! Bright!, Great crit racing rig!
rider 2-kinda soft and noodly, vague, comfy for long rides but not 'crisp' feeling.

So..YMMV and all that.

[rain dogs]

Even if you could in many cases you have too much conflict with marketing agendas, and context.

For example, what good is it to know 0-60, 1/4mile times, and top speed when the reality is 99% of the time you're either breaking the law or stuck in a traffic jam.

But boy do people buy that slop up! Marketing agendas, and out of context data.

It'd be like asking the auto industry to really harp on about the fact that average speeds within city limits are 17mph. Or that studies show that people would rather teleport (if it were possible) than drive or....

These things are marketed to an idea, a belief, a tribe, hype, not so much objective data.

You sell the sizzle, not the steak.

[Mark McM]

It's not clear what you mean by real world data, when it comes to subjective assessments like comfort and feel. In addition, far more of the performance characteristics of a bike depend on the rider/driver than for other vehicles.

Of course, there still is room for objective testing of bicycles. Unfortunately, such testing can be difficult to do in a controlled and repeatable manner*, and realistically there is little motive for anyone to do it. Manufacturers would benefit little, if there was chance that such testing showed there is far little difference between bikes than their marketing claims would suggest. Bike magazines are in a similar quandary - even if they weren't beholden to their advertisers, such testing might remove some the "magic" that they spend many pages of prose waxing over.

It would be great if some 'Consumer Reports for Bikes' organization could be created, and I would certain support it, but I don't know that the demand is large enough to sustain such an organization.


*As an example, one of the important characteristics of bicycle tires is traction, especially on wet surfaces. And yet, there is virtually no objective data available on this parameter, because it is difficult to test for. When a rider exceeds the traction limit of their tires, they fall over and crash. And until a rider crashes, they don't know for sure how much traction their tire has. To compare a group of tires and determine which has the most traction basically requires that a rider crashes repeatedly. Such tests have actually been done in controlled situations, but very rarely, and it takes a special kind of rider to subject themselves to that.

[fa63]

I have actually given quite a bit thought to setting up something along these lines. With the availability of sensors and data acquisition systems these days, it would be relatively straightforward to instrument a bike, then use time series and frequency domain analysis to quantify certain things.

That said, my plans fall apart when I ask myself this question: why would a manufacturer send me their bike for this test? They potentially have more to lose than they have to gain. The other way would be to purchase bikes, like Consumer Reports does, which would also eliminate the perception of bias, but that requires a lot of money and I am not sure there are enough other like-minded cyclists out there who would help pay for something like this.

[GregL]

The late, much lamented (by me, at least...) Australian cycling magazine Ride Cycling Review (now Ride Media) tested bikes using instrumented data. They performed the "traditional" stiffness tests by measuring deflection at the bottom bracket, head tube, and seat tube with weights. They also developed a test protocol that measured damping of road vibrations. An overview of their testing protocols is available here: http://www.ridemedia.com.au/past-iss...s-of-the-test/. I always enjoyed their bike tests and subscribed to the magazine (first paper copies, then digital) for years. Sadly, they stopped publishing both versions several years ago.

Greg

[prototoast]

Velonews has done something like this in the past: https://www.velonews.com/2012/07/rev...rldtour_229143

I'm not sure the output is particularly useful, though. As others have pointed out, there's a lot of subjectivity and rider-dependent preferences that make it hard to generalize, and even within a given rider, while we generally know certain basic principles (e.g, bigger tubes are stiffer), converting that knowledge into direct changes to ride feel/quality is more an art than a science.