Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wooden bikes

materiabikes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 238 posts

Re: Wooden bikes

#131

Post by toxik »

gameswithgo wrote: post #82

The 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.

While true that tire stiffness is a major player in vibration transfer, it also trades off friction. As we all know, stiffer tires (higher pressure) is faster. I think you're reducing a complicated mechanical system to a few variables; mountain bikes, for example, have dedicated shock absorbers. Granted, they're for much harder impacts, but something similar could be said of high-frequency shocks.

Re: Wooden bikes

#132

Post by icebraining »

rhinoceraptor wrote: post #39
sergiosgc wrote: post #14

I don't understand the market for bicycles in the thousands of euro price range. Bikes get stolen often enough for me to never be relaxed leaving such a bike outside a shop or caffe or such. If you can't leave the bike anywhere, it's almost useless, except perhaps as a virtue signalling device.

It's pretty easy to get a bike that price if you use decent, brand name components rather than cheap generic components. And if you ride a lot, it's worth it to spend more and get a bike you enjoy riding. And with a good lock, I don't really worry about theft.

What lock do you use?

Re: Wooden bikes

#133

Post by H1Supreme »

ubermonkey wrote: post #115
Emma_Goldman wrote: post #38

Interesting 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?

Within the world of go-fast or go-far riding, yeah, they do, with real measurable changes and gains up through probably $6-7.5K USD. For most riders, going above an entry level carbon fiber bike with Shimano 105 components and alloy rims is probably overkill. That price point is between $1500 and $2500US, depending on manufacturer and other options. If you're a larger rider, getting a better grade of carbon frame is…

> For most riders, going above an entry level carbon fiber bike with Shimano 105 components and alloy rims is probably overkill

Even the Tiagra line is very good these days. Aside from the 11th cog on the 105's, I'd say that they're pretty even in terms of performance. Especially in regards to shifting.

Re: Wooden bikes

#134

Post by Fricken »

dsego wrote: post #95
mymythisisthis wrote: post #70

Earlier 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.

I'm loyal to steel because of it's stiffness. It's almost twice a stiff as the next best material, and 20x as stiff as wood, according to the chart in the article. So I don't think wood is for me.

Re: Wooden bikes

#135

Post by cultus »

dabeeeenster wrote: post #128
cultus wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Oh for sure. Indexed shifting, better alloys, for example.

There have been some major innovations, but most of what has come out in the last 10 years in road bikes hasn't been great. Lots of new BB standards that all creak, thinner chains, too few spokes, etc.

Re: Wooden bikes

#136

Post by halbritt »

dsego wrote: post #95
mymythisisthis wrote: post #70

Earlier 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.

Generally speaking this stiffness is the result of the tube shapes necessary to achieve similar strength and stiffness of a steel frame while weighing less.

A perfect example of this is the Cannondale CAD3. It had a massive downtube and huge (straight) seat stays as well. It was extraordinarily stiff and terribly unpleasant to ride, for most. Cannondale improved that to some degree by using S-shaped seat stays on the CAAD4 making the frame a less-efficient conductor of vibrations.

Modern aluminum bikes use hydroformed tubes with optimized shapes and shouldn't really have these problems. Unless you're talking about something with an aluminum fork. That's just a cheap bike. Aluminum forks are terrible.

Re: Wooden bikes

#137

Post by cultus »

toxik wrote: post #131
gameswithgo wrote: post #82

The 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.

While true that tire stiffness is a major player in vibration transfer, it also trades off friction. As we all know, stiffer tires (higher pressure) is faster. I think you're reducing a complicated mechanical system to a few variables; mountain bikes, for example, have dedicated shock absorbers. Granted, they're for much harder impacts, but something similar could be said of high-frequency shocks.

Too high pressure actually decreases efficiency. While you have less deformation of the rubber, it causes the bike to bounce over irregularities more. The energy from this bouncing is lost. On rougher roads, often pressures below 90 PSI are best.

Re: Wooden bikes

#138

Post by toxik »

cultus wrote: post #137
toxik wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While true that tire stiffness is a major player in vibration transfer, it also trades off friction. As we all know, stiffer tires (higher pressure) is faster. I think you're reducing a complicated mechanical system to a few variables; mountain bikes, for example, have dedicated shock absorbers. Granted, they're for much harder impacts, but something similar could be said of high-frequency shocks.

Too high pressure actually decreases efficiency. While you have less deformation of the rubber, it causes the bike to bounce over irregularities more. The energy from this bouncing is lost. On rougher roads, often pressures below 90 PSI are best.

Ok, yes, assuming traction isn't lost, stiffer is better -- really, smaller contact area is better, but that translates into stiffness. Then there is heat loss to tire deformation, of course.

Re: Wooden bikes

#139

Post by modzu »

gameswithgo wrote: post #82

The 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.

speaking from experience there must be something more to it (and most any experienced rider will agree):

i often think my tires are flat(!) on my Ti bike even though they are higher pressure than the tires on my Al bike, because it feels that smooth

Re: Wooden bikes

#140

Post by modzu »

eitally wrote: post #109
gameswithgo wrote: post #82

The 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.

But dampening happens differently in different parts of the frame. For example, thinner & curved seat stays vs a suspension fork, or round 853 steel tubing vs highly aero-optimized low profile carbon, or deep dish carbon wheels vs traditional aluminum. Your statement is technically accurate, but that doesn't mean the feel of the ride will be equivalent.

for real -- is an aluminum wire stiffer than a steel rod? no. bike tubes are made very differently depending on the materials; any model of stifness that you feel at your BODY needs to compensate for all of that
Post reply on HN