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

231–238 of 238 posts

Re: Wooden bikes

#231

Post by cultus »

Lio wrote: post #224
cultus wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 c…

>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.

Steel is almost perfectly elastic below its fatigue limit. It never fails for stress underneath this, since the elastic motion doesn't generate new dislocations or anything. It is true that aluminum has no lower fatigue limit, but outside of crashes, this occurs so slowly as to be meaningless on human timescales.

>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.

That is 100% not true. Bike frames are all highly stiff vertically because of the diamond tube shape. There is no practical bikeframe of any material that has non-negligible vertical compliance. That is just marketing fluff.

Re: Wooden bikes

#232

Post by grogenaut »

CydeWeys wrote: post #178
TomVDB wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Counterpoint: for me, buying an easier (in my case: much lighter) bike, was the difference between deciding to ride or to not ride at all. I don't think I'm alone in that.

You're definitely not wrong. I can (and have) ridden my cyclocross bike for hours, which I have no desire of attempting on a Citibike, what I was using before I bought my own bike.

Sure but to you and go: you don't need to spend 10k to get a bike that meets those needs. Anything in the 1-2k range (eg laptop) prices is a very very nice bike.

Both of my favorite bikes are cyclocross bikes. The first one I got used and upgraded the componyts to ultegra and bb7 discs. Was around 900 all in.

I may be a bit hypocrite with my second bike which was a factory replace of the first with a top of the line racing cyclo cf frame (weld failed). But the cost and some velocity touring wheels (which caused the frame failure in the first frame by moving stress off the wheels). So to me that bike cost $1200... But is likely a $4k bike. I don't know if that makes me a hypocrite or just savvy. But a lot of the bikes I test ride in the 1-2k range we're super nice. And there were plenty in the 700-1000 range as well (trick in Seattle is to buy bikes in August when the Google kids and M$ kids are going back to school)

Re: Wooden bikes

#233

Post by CydeWeys »

grogenaut wrote: post #232
CydeWeys wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're definitely not wrong. I can (and have) ridden my cyclocross bike for hours, which I have no desire of attempting on a Citibike, what I was using before I bought my own bike.

Sure but to you and go: you don't need to spend 10k to get a bike that meets those needs. Anything in the 1-2k range (eg laptop) prices is a very very nice bike. Both of my favorite bikes are cyclocross bikes. The first one I got used and upgraded the componyts to ultegra and bb7 discs. Was around 900 all in. I may be a bit hypocrite with my second bike which was a factory replace of the first with a top of the line…

Yeah, and I definitely didn't spend close to that much on it. It would still hurt me to have to replace it though, hence my preference for not locking it up outside. My point was more that, based on how I use it, it could've been a $10K bike.

I have several hours of work invested into my bike too, having installed proper fenders, a rear rack, and some safety equipment like lights and bells. That plus the ~$700 I have in it all told would not be enjoyable to replace.

Re: Wooden bikes

#234

Post by hasbot »

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.

Do you have references to those tests? My personal experience says otherwise. I have steel, aluminum, titanium road bikes of about the same pedigree and setups. The different materials absolutely provide a different ride. But, if I'm thrown on some random, unfamiliar bike and ride it for a short period of time, I probably couldn't guess the frame material.

I have a Scandium bike too with an oversized bottom bracket. Being 200lbs, on a climb, I can definitely feel the difference the bottom bracket makes. All the other bikes flex a little when I stand up and crank. Not the Scandium bike. Maybe that's unimportant to you, but I really enjoy the feeling of stomping on the pedals and having the bike immediately respond to the power.

Re: Wooden bikes

#235

Post by rini17 »

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 am using PVC liners "Stop Flats 2" that go inside the tire. Due to broken glass everywhere I went flat often before, but never since. It is a compromise, makes the wheel heavier but it is cheap and won't affect feeling much.

Re: Wooden bikes

#236

Post by vanderZwan »

Doxin wrote: post #226
vanderZwan wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Just because the right type of glue exists does not prove that this is the glue being used in these materials.

Re: Wooden bikes

#237

Post by abakker »

samstave wrote: post #181
abakker wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wate…

In the 80s, in Tahoe, we built a tree-fort near my house. My dad was a general contractor and we had a lot of MDF available to use from his company... Yeah - MDF and SNOW do not a happy tree house make. The MDF sops up water like a sponge and deteriorates into its constituent particulate... which really sucked because our fort had two levels.... We built a house on the truckee river and there was a giant glue-lam bea…

A critical part of composite materials is that they are dimensionally stable. They don’t warp, elongate, or shrink, which is better than true wood. The glue and different grain orientations counteract the normal movement.

The grain patterns in OSB look a lot like those in parts made of forged carbon, and provide a similar purpose.

Re: Wooden bikes

#238

Post by ashtonbaker »

geoka9 wrote: post #157
ashtonbaker wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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).

Sure. There's an optimal tire pressure for each tire, and the wider the tire, the lower the pressure. The point I was making was that a wide tire at optimal (low) pressure is not significantly slower than a narrow tire at optimal (high) pressure. However, any particular tire can be underinflated relative to its optimum, and become sluggish.
Post reply on HN