Is there a science to building metal bike frames?

[choke]

Originally Posted by joevers

That just doesn't change the fact that advancements in non metal frames and components have made them measurably faster to the tune of dozens of watts.

Going from a 7/11 era Merckx to the latest and greatest carbon Merckx raced in the tour is like having a constant tailwind.

I won't disagree that they are faster. But how much faster? Not much, if you look at the stats.

The 1952 Giro was 3964km long and the winning time was 114h 36' 43". That's an average speed of 34.59km/hr.

The 2019 Giro was 3547km long and the winning time was 90h 01 '47". That's an average speed of 39.40 km/hr.

So with carbon frames...
....more gears
....better rolling tires
....better nutrition
....advanced training techniques
....etc. etc

there was less than a 5 km/hr improvement in 67 years....on a course that was 417 km shorter.

[tomato coupe]

Originally Posted by choke

I won't disagree that they are faster. But how much faster? Not much, if you look at the stats.

The 1952 Giro was 3964km long and the winning time was 114h 36' 43". That's an average speed of 34.59km/hr.

The 2019 Giro was 3547km long and the winning time was 90h 01 '47". That's an average speed of 39.40 km/hr.

there was less than a 5 km/hr improvement in 67 years....on a course that was 417 km shorter.

It's a 14% difference, from 21.5mph to 24.5mph. That's a huge change.

[buddybikes]

Fastest Tour de France Time Trial longer than 20 km
Greg LeMond 54.545 km/h Versailles - Paris (24.5 km) 1989
David Millar 54.361 km/h Pornic - Nantes (49 km) 2003

With its steel frame, 650c front wheel and Mavic rear disc wheel, Greg LeMond’s Bottecchia was no different than other time trial bikes in the 1989 Tour de France. What separated it was the addition of Boone Lennon-designed aerobars.

[Clean39T]

Originally Posted by steveandbarb1

Fastest Tour de France Time Trial longer than 20 km
Greg LeMond 54.545 km/h Versailles - Paris (24.5 km) 1989
David Millar 54.361 km/h Pornic - Nantes (49 km) 2003

With its steel frame, 650c front wheel and Mavic rear disc wheel, Greg LeMond’s Bottecchia was no different than other time trial bikes in the 1989 Tour de France. What separated it was the addition of Boone Lennon-designed aerobars.

I am the walrus?

[gbcoupe]

My fastest bikes:

Scapin Dyesys. Columbus Spirit and carbon mix with Dura Ace
C24 wheels.

Assos Goomah. Carbon frame with November 50mm narrow
carbon rims

Fondiest X-Status with Easton SLX wheels.

Most comfortable/best balanced:

Moser Leader AX. Oria steel with Ritchey Zeta Classic
wheels.

Scapin Dyesys. Columbus Spirit and carbon mix.

Della Santa. Dedacciai steel with Easton SLX wheels.

I think fit is foremost. I wouldn't call my dyesys an aero bike. I don't think the few carbon tubes have any advantage over an all steel or carbon frame. It's just a very well designed and built frame.

I very much like the feel of a steel frame. That said, I haven't tested a more modern carbon ride than my Assos.

[choke]

Originally Posted by tomato coupe

It's a 14% difference, from 21.5mph to 24.5mph. That's a huge change.

Obviously it's hard to quantify how much was the bike and how much was everything else and that's the $64,000 question. One competition that comes to mind which eliminates the bike is the mile record. If you compare the record from 1952 (set in 1945 @ 4:01.4) and the record in 2019 (set in 1999 at 3:43.13) there is a 17% difference.

GCN went to a wind tunnel with modern and retro bikes (and yes I'm aware that it's not a true scientific study). They found that the clothing made a much bigger difference than the bike when it came to aerodynamics. And that retro bike was sporting 32h non-aero wheels.

[tomato coupe]

Originally Posted by choke

Obviously it's hard to quantify how much was the bike and how much was everything else and that's the $64,000 question. One competition that comes to mind which eliminates the bike is the mile record. If you compare the record from 1952 (set in 1945 @ 4:01.4) and the record in 2019 (set in 1999 at 3:43.13) there is a 17% difference.

What the heck does this have to do with anything? It has about as much relevance to cycling and frame material as the world high jump record.

[martl]

Originally Posted by tomato coupe

It's a 14% difference, from 21.5mph to 24.5mph. That's a huge change.

Good thing no one paved the roads in the meantime, no one improved training and nutrition hahaha

The average wattage during a 1 day classic is below 200w.
Getting "dozens of watts" advantage would mean you literally win the race by 20min, or the other way around, there is no rider strong enough in the world to keep the pace in the final hour of such a race if he was on "dozens of watts" disadvantage.

Boonen rode his personal Pego in one of those. Also won 2 TDF stages on it.

[Mark McM]

Originally Posted by choke

The 1952 Giro was 3964km long and the winning time was 114h 36' 43". That's an average speed of 34.59km/hr.

Apples and oranges. The 1952 Route was much far less hilly than the 2019 route. The 1952 route had only 12 categorized climbs, while the 2019 route had 38. If the hillier 2019 was the same speed as the flatter 1952 that would still be notable, but in fact the modern hillier route was faster than the older flatter route.

Originally Posted by steveandbarb1

Fastest Tour de France Time Trial longer than 20 km
Greg LeMond 54.545 km/h Versailles - Paris (24.5 km) 1989
David Millar 54.361 km/h Pornic - Nantes (49 km) 2003

With its steel frame, 650c front wheel and Mavic rear disc wheel, Greg LeMond’s Bottecchia was no different than other time trial bikes in the 1989 Tour de France. What separated it was the addition of Boone Lennon-designed aerobars.

More apples and oranges. The point-to-point course of 21st stage of the 1989 Tour de France was downhill with a tailwind (this makes Lemond's win even more notable, since it is harder to gain time on a downhill tailwind route). Another big difference is that Millar has admitted to using EPO for the 2003 Tour de France time trial.

[joevers]

Originally Posted by martl

The average wattage during a 1 day classic is below 200w.

No it's not.

Pogacar was averaging 300w on the longer stages of the tour and is a tiny rider. I've averaged over 200w on 2 hour group rides and I'm 135 pounds. Taylor Phinney averaged 350w normalized for 6 hours for the 2018 Paris Roubaix and came in 8th.

Originally Posted by martl

Getting "dozens of watts" advantage would mean you literally win the race by 20min, or the other way around, there is no rider strong enough in the world to keep the pace in the final hour of such a race if he was on "dozens of watts" disadvantage.

No, it doesn't. 20-30w is not enough to win a race by 20 minutes, you know that the classics are not an individual time trial. You're also talking about riders with remarkably similar equipment, which has nothing to do with what is being compared in previous posts. If you take an average racer in the peloton and give them a 20-30w advantage do you think they'd just be able to walk off the front? Nope. Hold everyone off for tens of miles and finish solo? Nope. Win in a sprint they haven't been able to contest? Nope.

Originally Posted by martl

Boonen rode his personal Pego in one of those. Also won 2 TDF stages on it.

"Fast person still fast on metal bike"

In 2007 half the peloton was on aluminum wheels, everyone in the Paris Roubaix used tied and soldered spokes with Ambrosio Nemisis, most every bike was round tubed and they all had 4 cables sticking out in front of their round handlebars. You're right, frame aerodynamics were not widely understood then, and our understanding of aerodynamics and how to build a bike to optimize that is still constantly expanding and changing. Even from 5 years ago bike design has changed considerably.

This is what bikes in the TDF look like today
https://www.bikeradar.com/features/p...-france-bikes/

From this article, to help you understand what 20-30w improvement at race pace means: https://bicyclist.xyz/regulars/ask-t...r-road-riding/
"As an example of this difficulty, increasing your speed from 30 mph to 31 mph requires 33.5 additional watts (328 watts to 361.5 watts). For reference, 33.5 watts is appropriately the same total power requirement for (as the example) a 180 pound rider on flat ground, with dead air at 14 mph. Looking at our rider going from 37 mph to 38 mph requires 50.5 additional watts due to the aerodynamic drag working against the rider."

From this widely cited and often updated chart half way down the page: https://weightweenies.starbike.com/f...2980&start=435
There's over 20w to be had from moving from an SL5 Tarmac to an SL7 at 45km/h

This is my last comment on this because it feels a little ridiculous at this point tbh. I can't even tell if you're not being serious or if you just really do not understand bike design.

I enjoy steel and metal bikes and will continue to ride them. I think they look lovely, I like the durability, I like how they ride, I like the availability of parts, I like how simple they are, I like being able to buy a bike from someone who has been building the same metal bike for decades, and I like that I'm only out 800-1,500 if I crash out my frame in a crit or hit a tree at a cross race instead of 2-4,000$.

Once again though, there is not a single situation where my or anyone's steel bikes are faster than something like an S5, a Supersix, a Tarmac etc with comparable position and build.

[XXtwindad]

Originally Posted by joevers

No it's not.

Pogacar was averaging 300w on the longer stages of the tour and is a tiny rider. I've averaged over 200w on 2 hour group rides and I'm 135 pounds. Taylor Phinney averaged 350w normalized for 6 hours for the 2018 Paris Roubaix and came in 8th.



No, it doesn't. 20-30w is not enough to win a race by 20 minutes, you know that the classics are not an individual time trial. You're also talking about riders with remarkably similar equipment, which has nothing to do with what is being compared in previous posts. If you take an average racer in the peloton and give them a 20-30w advantage do you think they'd just be able to walk off the front? Nope. Hold everyone off for tens of miles and finish solo? Nope. Win in a sprint they haven't been able to contest? Nope.



"Fast person still fast on metal bike"

In 2007 half the peloton was on aluminum wheels, everyone in the Paris Roubaix used tied and soldered spokes with Ambrosio Nemisis, most every bike was round tubed and they all had 4 cables sticking out in front of their round handlebars. You're right, frame aerodynamics were not widely understood then, and our understanding of aerodynamics and how to build a bike to optimize that is still constantly expanding and changing. Even from 5 years ago bike design has changed considerably.

This is what bikes in the TDF look like today
https://www.bikeradar.com/features/p...-france-bikes/

From this article, to help you understand what 20-30w improvement at race pace means: https://bicyclist.xyz/regulars/ask-t...r-road-riding/
"As an example of this difficulty, increasing your speed from 30 mph to 31 mph requires 33.5 additional watts (328 watts to 361.5 watts). For reference, 33.5 watts is appropriately the same total power requirement for (as the example) a 180 pound rider on flat ground, with dead air at 14 mph. Looking at our rider going from 37 mph to 38 mph requires 50.5 additional watts due to the aerodynamic drag working against the rider."

From this widely cited and often updated chart half way down the page: https://weightweenies.starbike.com/f...2980&start=435
There's over 20w to be had from moving from an SL5 Tarmac to an SL7 at 45km/h

This is my last comment on this because it feels a little ridiculous at this point tbh. I can't even tell if you're not being serious or if you just really do not understand bike design.

I enjoy steel and metal bikes and will continue to ride them. I think they look lovely, I like the durability, I like how they ride, I like the availability of parts, I like how simple they are, I like being able to buy a bike from someone who has been building the same metal bike for decades, and I like that I'm only out 800-1,500 if I crash out my frame in a crit or hit a tree at a cross race instead of 2-4,000$.

Once again though, there is not a single situation where my or anyone's steel bikes are faster than something like an S5, a Supersix, a Tarmac etc with comparable position and build.

I enjoy reading your posts. Very informative. It’s good to have another “Mark McM” on the site. Also, please forward me the contact info for your builder. I believe I’ve been overpaying.

[martl]

Originally Posted by joevers

This is my last comment on this because it feels a little ridiculous at this point tbh. I can't even tell if you're not being serious or if you just really do not understand bike design.

I enjoy steel and metal bikes and will continue to ride them. I think they look lovely, I like the durability, I like how they ride, I like the availability of parts, I like how simple they are, I like being able to buy a bike from someone who has been building the same metal bike for decades, and I like that I'm only out 800-1,500 if I crash out my frame in a crit or hit a tree at a cross race instead of 2-4,000$.

Once again though, there is not a single situation where my or anyone's steel bikes are faster than something like an S5, a Supersix, a Tarmac etc with comparable position and build.

Pogacar is what, 66kg? No way he does 350 for 6 hours. Heres an SRM from Bakelandt for a TDF stage:



he averages *220

And if you think Boonen can win 2 stages in a 70km/h sprintout against the worlds best on bikes with "dozen of watts" advantage, keep on dreaming.

But I'm feeling the same, mate. You go on believing your bike ads, mr "dozens of watts", i go on believing what i know. And dont forget to buy next years bike, it is definitely faster, also an different color!

[tomato coupe]

Originally Posted by martl

Pogacar is what, 66kg? No way he does 350 for 6 hours.

Embrace reading comprehension. He stated Taylor Phinney averaged 350W (normalized) for 6 hours.

[Mark McM]

Originally Posted by martl

The average wattage during a 1 day classic is below 200w.

That seems unlikely. But even so, the key to performance in mass start racing isn't average power, it's being able to produce high power for short periods at key points in the race.

Originally Posted by martl

Getting "dozens of watts" advantage would mean you literally win the race by 20min, or the other way around, there is no rider strong enough in the world to keep the pace in the final hour of such a race if he was on "dozens of watts" disadvantage.

Nobody is claiming that riders on aero bikes save "dozens of Watts" during the entire race. During the majority of a race riders are in a pack and/or are drafting other riders, where aerodynamic drag is greatly reduced (some studies show that aero drag can be reduced by more than 90% in a large pack). So even the best aero bike will not allow a racer to win by 20 minutess. The only time a rider will be saving "dozens of Watts" is when they are are riding at high speed with few other riders around them - which as mentioned above, happens during those key moments that can make or break a race.

[Toddykins]

Originally Posted by martl

Pogacar is what, 66kg? No way he does 350 for 6 hours. Heres an SRM from Bakelandt for a TDF stage:



he averages *220

And if you think Boonen can win 2 stages in a 70km/h sprintout against the worlds best on bikes with "dozen of watts" advantage, keep on dreaming.

But I'm feeling the same, mate. You go on believing your bike ads, mr "dozens of watts", i go on believing what i know. And dont forget to buy next years bike, it is definitely faster, also an different color!

Wait - Are you trying to argue that dozens of watts won’t make a difference? Dozens of watts is a huge change. Go try for yourself and see how ‘easy’ it is to raise your ftp by that much...