I think they look cool and everything, but it still doesn't seem very practical for real use. Maybe if you are just occasionally cruising around on a nice day. Most people don't do very well with bike maintenance and I assume this would be a major issue with a bike like this.
Wooden bikes
121–130 of 238 posts
Re: Wooden bikes
#122Interesting idea. Unconscionable price. I don't think you could justify spending that amount of money on a bike unless it is one of your life's deepest passions. Which seems rare. Does the quality of bikes really change that much when you go up the price range, for amateur users?
the cervelo p5x time trial bicycle starts from $8k for “just” the frame: https://www.cervelo.com/p5x “full spec” is $16k.
There is a bike messenger in NYC who rides a PX5...
Re: Wooden bikes
#123Looking at the test results: 4-6mm permanent deformation when dropping it from 18-20cm? That doesn't seem very good, especially for a city ride with frequent curbs, small steps, road gaps, and a heavy rider like myself (92kg).
Does that mean if you drop something on the frame you'll get a little dent? Since it's wood? It's not a structural problem is it? Just like a cricket bat gets dents each time you hit a ball but it still works fine.
Here's a video of this test being performed on another frame: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCU7VT9fOpo
With a 20 cm drop the velocity is 4.95 m/s, or a pretty average bicycle pace (11 mph, 18 kph), ridden directly into a wall. All things considered, a 4-5 mm deformation isn't that bad. As long as it isn't splintering or splitting, which would be dangerous, the bike isn't going to see much forces in that specific direction. Rider weight doesn't matter because the rider will immediately be thrown over the handlebars.
In more realistic scenarios like hitting a curb or dropping the bike, the force will be much more vertical, which will give a several-times-higher mechanical advantage due to the fork rake. The tires will also absorb a lot of the shock loads.
In general wood doesn't lose strength from being beat up, no. Wood construction standards (which admittedly, I know only the basics about) usually assure you that dents and surface defects are not a big deal. The strength in most woods (particularly soft woods) comes from the fact that they're very fibrous and anisotropic, so when they're dented it usually moves the fibers around without actually breaking them.
Re: Wooden bikes
#124Engineered wood is truly an amazing material. While touring a newly-constructed home a few weeks ago, I saw what appeared to be floor joists constructed out of thin, cheap particle-board. It turns out that they're made of engineered wood, and are actually stronger than an equivalent sawed wood beam. https://imgur.com/a/3AkZblF
Engineered wood and chipboard/ Oriented strand board (OSB) are a very different animal that particleboard or MDF. Each has their purpose. True particleboard is a very crappy material, best used for ballast and being cheap. MDF is smooth, stable, and machinable, and OSB provides a lot of tortional resilience.
For any home woodworkers, I don’t recommend working with OSB or particleboard. However, OSB is moderately waterproof, which neither of the others is.
Re: Wooden bikes
#125The vibration dampening is a red herring. As a point of comparison, the differences in dampening between various frames/materials is on the order of ~1psi of tire pressure normally. In other words, if you found yourself with the harshest of frames, you could drop air pressure by 1 or 2psi and be at the same level as the "smoothest" frame.
The gullibility of cyclists is the industry's most valuable asset. In tests, cyclists cannot tell the difference between frame materials when the frame is covered.
I think it is just really seductive to think you can get magically faster by a significant amount just by buying a new frame with that new bottom bracket that's claimed to be 30% stiffer.
Re: Wooden bikes
#126I use a bike as my primary transportation (I live in a very, very bike friendly city) and I don't think I have ever seen a wooden bike. Vibrations from the road is not something I've ever considered since it has not been a problem in any of the bikes that I've had. My primary considerations when considering a bike would be: * Price * Durability * Cargo support (like basket and rear hub)
If you do a road trip more than 80km, you feel the vibration. I find aluminum is worse than steel. With short, daily trips, I don't think people notice vibration.
I've done a road trip more than 1000k on a ~$100 aluminum frame and vibration was never even a minor concern.
If you're going at very high speed or constant rough ground I can see how it'll get you, but seat design and quality of shifting/braking components were by far the biggest factors.
Re: Wooden bikes
#127Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you do a road trip more than 80km, you feel the vibration. I find aluminum is worse than steel. With short, daily trips, I don't think people notice vibration.
My 2 cents, steel is better, I've had wrist issues with an aluminum bike that I just don't get with the steel one. It seems to dampen and absorb the high frequency vibrations.
The real solution to vibrations is a thoroughly damped bike, like this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N39uwTykTQk -- it features some next-generation thinking in its spring system.
Re: Wooden bikes
#128The vibration dampening is a red herring. As a point of comparison, the differences in dampening between various frames/materials is on the order of ~1psi of tire pressure normally. In other words, if you found yourself with the harshest of frames, you could drop air pressure by 1 or 2psi and be at the same level as the "smoothest" frame.
The gullibility of cyclists is the industry's most valuable asset. In tests, cyclists cannot tell the difference between frame materials when the frame is covered. I think it is just really seductive to think you can get magically faster by a significant amount just by buying a new frame with that new bottom bracket that's claimed to be 30% stiffer.
Although I generally agree, there are a couple of things that can have a big difference. Most obvious one being proper cycling shoes and cleat peddles. Big efficiency gains there.
Re: Wooden bikes
#129The vibration dampening is a red herring. As a point of comparison, the differences in dampening between various frames/materials is on the order of ~1psi of tire pressure normally. In other words, if you found yourself with the harshest of frames, you could drop air pressure by 1 or 2psi and be at the same level as the "smoothest" frame.
Are you certain about this? Because I'm not sure it's true based on my own relatively recent experience test-riding a variety of fairly serious road-cycling frames.
I can't find the source at the moment, but there was actually a test done where riders rode bikes of carbon vs. alloy or steel with the frame material obscured from view. They couldn't tell the difference. When everyone is telling you that carbon has a better ride quality, it's hard not to feel it.
Steel is the best frame material for 95% of people due to its durability. Quality steel frames (not Schwinn travellers) are quite light. Cro-moly frames like Salsa are a good choice and weigh around 2-3 kg vs 1-2 kg for a carbon frame. There's plenty of framebuilders who can build custom frames out of other alloys as well. There's been steel frames built down to a kilo.
If you have a problem with harshness, wrap the bars with another layer of bar tape. Another option is to use wider lower PSI tires, preferably with wider 23mm rims. Not only is it softer, but the rolling resistance is actually less than standard road rims and tires.
Re: Wooden bikes
#130If wooden bikes were the best the bike, we would have figured it out a hundred years ago. This is dumb.