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

151–160 of 238 posts

Re: Wooden bikes

#151

Post by gameswithgo »

ubermonkey wrote: post #110
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.

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.

You have to blind yourself when testing. The human mind just can't handle perception!

Re: Wooden bikes

#152

Post by johnvanommen »

halbritt wrote: post #136
dsego wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's rare to see a fork that's NOT aluminum. Even "carbon forks" are typically aluminum forks covered in carbon.

Source : I've shortened a lot of forks.

Re: Wooden bikes

#153

Post by ashtonbaker »

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.

> As we all know, stiffer tires (higher pressure) is faster.

We're living in interesting times for this "conventional" wisdom! One school of thought argues that while there might be a theoretical relationship between high pressure and low rolling resistance, but the real-world effect has been exaggerated by poor testing methodology, which usually involves a circular drum as a substitute for a flat road. And that the benefits of achieving low rolling resistance are offset by the losses due to increased vibration.

Of course, this school of thought is largely the product of one man, Jan Heine of Compass Bicycles, but it's interesting to read and consider. Personally, I made the jump from 23mm road tires at 120psi to 48mm slick tires at ~40psi this year, and I have to say, my average speed didn't take a hit at all on the road and am much happier and more comfortable.

https://janheine.wordpress.com/2018/05/02/testing-tires-isnt...

https://janheine.wordpress.com/2016/03/09/tire-pressure-take...

Re: Wooden bikes

#154

Post by johnvanommen »

amelius wrote: post #57

I wish someone invented and actually sold tires which can't go flat. I don't mind if it makes the bike somewhat harder to ride. For short-distance trips (intra-city) this should be no problem, and could perhaps even save me a visit to the gym.

I've generally noticed that wider tires make a big difference. For instance, I bought a road bike with 23mm wide tires and it was just unusable, it would get flats every other ride.

Over the past 5-10 years there's been a trend towards wider rims, thankfully. Before that, a lot of road bike frames couldn't even FIT a wheel over 25mm wide!

Re: Wooden bikes

#155

Post by Eric_WVGG »

cultus wrote: post #125
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.

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.

There's a blogger called “Bike Snob” who has been ridiculing cyclist gullibility and fleeting trends for over ten years. One manufacturer of wooden bicycles decided to just up and send him one, and… well I'll just quote him:

> Before getting the bike: Intrigued by the novelty factor and an excuse to make gratuitous wood puns

> Shortly after receiving the bike: Impressed by the exquisite craftsmanship but also kind of embarrassed by it at the same time

> Shortly after riding the bike for the first time: Wow, it feels great, but what's that creaking? I bet it's broken

> Once I'd solved the creaking by tightening the bottom bracket: I really like riding this bike

> Today: All bikes should be made of wood, metal and crabon is for vulgarians

His whole shtick is being a bit jokey, but anyway he's been writing about this thing for a year now and basically loves it.

I'd also like to point out that people buy bicycles for factors other than speed. Most people, I would wager.

Re: Wooden bikes

#156

Post by dsego »

halbritt wrote: post #136
dsego wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Yes, I'm talking about a cheap frame with an aluminum fork.

Re: Wooden bikes

#157

Post by geoka9 »

ashtonbaker wrote: post #153
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.

> As we all know, stiffer tires (higher pressure) is faster. We're living in interesting times for this "conventional" wisdom! One school of thought argues that while there might be a theoretical relationship between high pressure and low rolling resistance, but the real-world effect has been exaggerated by poor testing methodology, which usually involves a circular drum as a substitute for a flat road. And that the…

Just curious, with the same set of tires, didn't you ever notice how much easier it is biking uphill when you don't neglect to inflate the tires before the ride? I'm not a competitive cyclist, but I'm on a bike every day and I notice it on my bikes (mountain, thick heavy tires and road, slick tires).

Re: Wooden bikes

#159

Post by Overtonwindow »

cultus wrote: post #125
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.

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.

I think this is oversimplifying how changes in material and aerodynamics can improve performance. A person such as yourself might not be impressed by a “new bottom bracket” with 30% increased stiffness, but someone who races might. Every ounce and second counts.

Re: Wooden bikes

#160

Post by Overtonwindow »

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?

I was fortunate to be sold a carbon and titanium bike at cost many years ago. It’s an amazing machine, and I truly love it, because nothing I’ve ridden since in aluminum or steel can compare. If I had $5k to drop on a new Specializes Carbon with RED, hell yeah id do it! It’s like: Once you’ve driven a Ferrari, the only thing you want to do is drive a Ferrari.
Post reply on HN