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

221–230 of 238 posts

Re: Wooden bikes

#221

Post by toomanybeersies »

spin wrote: post #219
toomanybeersies wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Back when I used to ride road bikes, I upgraded from a decade old (but very well maintained) aluminium Trek 1000 to a carbon fibre Merida Scultura. I had the same tyres, pedals, and shoes on my new bike (switched them over). I had a 3-4 km/h improvement on average on the flats instantly. So my new carbon bike was objectively better than my old aluminium bike. I'm not sure if the improvement was because the bike was b…

I'm curious what your new bike is. I currently have a 12 year old (but well maintained) Trek 1000. I'd like to get some better derailleurs (I'm constantly having to adjust and clean mine). But maybe I'll just get a better bike, I don't know. EDIT: oh, you already said it: Merida Scultura

I actually really liked my Trek 1000. I was very tempted at the time to just get a new groupset and wheels for the thing, but I had a really good deal on the Merida.

It's a very well built frame, it doesn't look the prettiest, but it gets the job done.

Re: Wooden bikes

#222

Post by halbritt »

johnvanommen wrote: post #152
halbritt wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Eh... Most steerer tubes are aluminum for exactly the reason that you've shortened a lot of forks. In the field, Joe Mechanic is less likely to screw up an aluminum steerer vs. a carbon one.

As to what's rare, hell if I know. Aluminum forks are fairly common on low to mid-tier bikes and the cheap ones tend to suck.

Re: Wooden bikes

#223

Post by Lio »

meroje wrote: post #171
geoka9 wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

I do, the difference is "woah this thing powers itself" kind of noticeable. Sure I could get the same average speed on my ride, but at the cost of so much more effort on low pressure tires.

Bicycle Quarterly put forward the idea that higher presure tyres feel faster because they transmit more vibration. Normally we would feel that vibration increasing as we go faster.

However,even though they feel faster, they’re actually slower. That extra vibration is coming from vertical deflection that a more supple (lower presure) tyre would allow to stay as forward momentum.

Personally I keep “25mm” (GP4Ks always seem to measure closer to 27mm for me) somewhere between 70-80 psi but then I’m the sort of madman that thinks I can feel the difference with latex inner tubes.

Re: Wooden bikes

#224

Post by Lio »

cultus wrote: post #129
ubermonkey wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)…

A quality carbon frame can range anywhere from 700g-1500g. I would say that was quite a bit lighter than a 3kg steel frame.

As for durability, I’ve been riding a 1200g Bianchi 928 for the last 12 years with no change in its behaviour.

Unlike steel or aluminium, carbon fibre doesn’t work harden so, as long as you don’t crash it, it will be MORE durable than steel.

Also because carbon frames are layed up by hand, you can can have different properties vertically vs laterally. So stiff side to side but with vertical flex at the bottom bracket ...or anything else you want.

You can even put stuff like flax seed in the resin to absorb vibration, just like this wooden frame claims to do.

Carbon is a better material for bikes than steel is.

It just lacks the romance because it’s harder for a lone bloke in his shed to weld.

(I still want one of these wooden bikes because n+1 and can you imagine rocking up to a club ride on one. :D )

Re: Wooden bikes

#225

Post by Lio »

matthewowen wrote: post #113
fyhn wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True enough, but the more magic your carpet is, the more likely you are to get flats.

Eh, this is another area where construction is a factor. Flats due to low psi are usually pinch flats, which is a clincher issue. If you can bear the expense and inconvenience of running tubulars, pinch flats are no longer a concern.

I guess you could try tubeless as an alternative to tubulars too. They also tend to offer lower rolling resistance than tubs.[1]

I’ve got tubs on my TT bike but for general summer riding I like latex tubes in clinchers. Latex seems to be more resistant to pinch flats as long you take care fitting them. Spare tubes are butyl but not had to fix a latex puncture in the last 2 years.

(Winter and commute bikes are butyl for convenience)

[1] https://www.bicyclerollingresistance.com/

Re: Wooden bikes

#226

Post by Doxin »

vanderZwan wrote: post #199
mr_overalls wrote: post #114

Engineered 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

Am I being paranoid if I worry about how long the glue will last? I mean I'm sure the chemists who created the stuff thought of this but I've never seen any articles on the how that is researched.

You're being paranoid. There is furniture around that's 100s of years old where the glue still hasn't failed.

Re: Wooden bikes

#227

Post by systemtest »

mrsuprawsm wrote: post #111
systemtest wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live in the Netherlands and have not had my bike stolen in 25 years. Just use a good lock and only park in secured parking locations with gated access and cameras. And don't buy a bike without knowing the full history and paperwork, otherwise you are shooting yourself in the foot by supporting criminals and raising your chance of having your bike stolen in the future.

I also live in the Netherlands, and if I restricted myself to only parking in secured parking locations with gated access and cameras, I would only be able to cycle from my office... to my office. This (obviously) precludes you from cycling anywhere you might want to go (home, the shops, your friends houses, a restaurant, a bar, a cafe). If you restrict yourself to parking in locations with cameras (e.g. stations), y…

If I go to a bar or shop I will park my bike in a nearby secured location and walk the last couple of minutes. At home I put the bike in a locked brick shed.

Re: Wooden bikes

#228

Post by cultus »

ema wrote: post #190
cultus wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

As a casual cyclist 50 psi already feels like "this is amazing I just hope my tires aren't gonna burst". So it seems "higher is better" is solid advice for most people, who aren't gonna go over 90 psi anyway.

On a road bike, you will get a pinch flat from running tires that low, where the tube gets cut between the rim and the ground.

Recommended pressure always varies. With wider tires, you typically must run them lower, since a too-high pressure will cause the tire to blow off the rim.

Re: Wooden bikes

#229

Post by cultus »

toomanybeersies wrote: post #217
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.

Back when I used to ride road bikes, I upgraded from a decade old (but very well maintained) aluminium Trek 1000 to a carbon fibre Merida Scultura. I had the same tyres, pedals, and shoes on my new bike (switched them over). I had a 3-4 km/h improvement on average on the flats instantly. So my new carbon bike was objectively better than my old aluminium bike. I'm not sure if the improvement was because the bike was b…

The vast majority of energy on a bike goes to aero drag, and most of that is the rider. Are you in a more aero position on the Merida? That would fully account for it.

The difference in weight is not capable of causing much difference on flats, since it would just slightly increase rolling resistance. The differences in mechanical efficiency of well-tuned road bikes is also pretty negligible.

Re: Wooden bikes

#230

Post by cultus »

Overtonwindow wrote: post #159
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.

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.

I am a former racer (cat 2). Every ounce does not count in amateur bike races, because such differences are dwarfed by differences in fitness. Significant figures. Aero drag matters a lot, and most of that is from the rider.

Races sometimes are very close, but they are that close only because the pack or a breakaway finish together. When the sprint happens, there are only a few seconds for riders to pull away from each other. In these cases, minor differences in efficiency still don't matter because it is over such a short time frame.

Post reply on HN