Live data from Hacker News

MIT Aluminum Bicycle Project 1974 (2016)

sheldonbrown.com

21–30 of 152 posts

Re: MIT Aluminum Bicycle Project 1974 (2016)

#21
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure if you know about Merckx's bike for his hour record - they did many interesting modifications to it aiming to reduce its weight

Yeah, Sheldon mentions it in this article. I don't think those mods helped. Weight has no impact on sustained speed.

You slow down incrementally between every power stroke.

Re: MIT Aluminum Bicycle Project 1974 (2016)

#22
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure if you know about Merckx's bike for his hour record - they did many interesting modifications to it aiming to reduce its weight

Yeah, Sheldon mentions it in this article. I don't think those mods helped. Weight has no impact on sustained speed.

> Weight has no impact on sustained speed.

On a nice track, assuming a perfectly smooth surface and zero elevation change, I'm willing to accept the effect may not matter enough to care. But introduce even just a little bumpiness or some elevation change (perhaps in the track curves), and it might matter for someone pursuing the hour record.

Re: MIT Aluminum Bicycle Project 1974 (2016)

#23
> Use larger diameter tubular components - Strength goes up as the cube of the diameter so unless there are geometric constraints, use larger diameter tubes with thinner walls to get a lighter structure with increased strength and stiffness.

This trend has continued -- it is very noticeable in road and mountain bikes.

But this trades off against impact resistance, aerodynamics, and the can-it-fit-between-your-legs-metric.

Re: MIT Aluminum Bicycle Project 1974 (2016)

#24
post #18

I'm convinced titanium is a pretty optimal bike material. I hate aluminum frames, too stiff, some amount of flex makes a bike so much nicer. Hate carbon, too. Steel is nice. I've have a lite ghisallo frame which I think was under 2lbs. The whole bike is under 15lbs and still manages to carry my 200lbs of weight.

Titanium frames have a devoted fan base. Personally, I tried to notice the difference back when I did road racing but didn't. Maybe I didn't want to: Ti ain't cheap.

Re: MIT Aluminum Bicycle Project 1974 (2016)

#25
post #24
post #18

I'm convinced titanium is a pretty optimal bike material. I hate aluminum frames, too stiff, some amount of flex makes a bike so much nicer. Hate carbon, too. Steel is nice. I've have a lite ghisallo frame which I think was under 2lbs. The whole bike is under 15lbs and still manages to carry my 200lbs of weight.

Titanium frames have a devoted fan base. Personally, I tried to notice the difference back when I did road racing but didn't. Maybe I didn't want to: Ti ain't cheap.

What is cheap these days?

Re: MIT Aluminum Bicycle Project 1974 (2016)

#26
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, Sheldon mentions it in this article. I don't think those mods helped. Weight has no impact on sustained speed.

You slow down incrementally between every power stroke.

A heavier bike would slow down less. At the end of the day the energy is lost to friction.

Re: MIT Aluminum Bicycle Project 1974 (2016)

#27
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure if you know about Merckx's bike for his hour record - they did many interesting modifications to it aiming to reduce its weight

Yeah, Sheldon mentions it in this article. I don't think those mods helped. Weight has no impact on sustained speed.

Rolling resistance increases linearly with weight, so it does have some impact.

Re: MIT Aluminum Bicycle Project 1974 (2016)

#28
post #22
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, Sheldon mentions it in this article. I don't think those mods helped. Weight has no impact on sustained speed.

> Weight has no impact on sustained speed. On a nice track, assuming a perfectly smooth surface and zero elevation change, I'm willing to accept the effect may not matter enough to care. But introduce even just a little bumpiness or some elevation change (perhaps in the track curves), and it might matter for someone pursuing the hour record.

You're not going up and down the track during an hour record. Just doing laps at the bottom (zero elevation change). Track surfaces aim to be very smooth in general.

Re: MIT Aluminum Bicycle Project 1974 (2016)

#29
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, Sheldon mentions it in this article. I don't think those mods helped. Weight has no impact on sustained speed.

Rolling resistance increases linearly with weight, so it does have some impact.

Ok. Almost no impact. Worth keeping in mind we're talking about a system weight of like 180 lb vs at most 185 lb here (Merckx was ~163 lb), for a relative difference of up to 3%.

Re: MIT Aluminum Bicycle Project 1974 (2016)

#30
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Titanium frames have a devoted fan base. Personally, I tried to notice the difference back when I did road racing but didn't. Maybe I didn't want to: Ti ain't cheap.

What is cheap these days?

Low quality steel is very cheap but also really heavy. You can get a whole crappy bike for a couple hundred bucks. Higher end steel isn't as cheap but is still relatively heavy (compared to aluminum or carbon). You can get this kind of bike in the $1000-2000 price range (e.g. Surly). Aluminum bikes tend to be inexpensive, but also not the lightest. These can also be priced at $1000-2000 (Specialized, Trek, Giant, ...). Carbon comes in a range of prices with various tradeoffs. You can get very budget carbon frames at like $1500 (Winspace) or whole bikes at like $3000 (Giant) (maybe $2000 in non-major brands, very discounted during current market conditions).

For titanium, I'm seeing Black Friday deals starting at like, $3200-3500 (Lynskey / Litespeed). But they're often sold at higher prices than carbon bikes. (For my money, I prefer carbon frames -- you get more flexibility in tube shapes and the end result can be lighter and stronger than titanium.)

Post reply on HN