"Since drag numbers aren’t very “portable” from test to test, I would think you would have to have every one of those bikes tested on the same day in the same tunnel to get accurate results. You would also need the same size, same handlebar configuration, wheels, etc. That’s stating the obvious, isn’t it? "
So all those bikes were brought into the same tunnel on the same day? Can you at least tell us who did the tests, where they were done, and when? I was not aware that such a comprehensive comparison was ever made.
Just out of curiousity, did the Hooker have the Hooker integrated bars or was it tested with a “control” set that was moved from bike to bike?
" Paint that Aegis a solid color, or have Hottubes custom-paint a P3 with a faux carbon fiber scheme, and I’ll bet you couldn’t tell me which one was more “comfortable”."
first off let me say that i would not use the word " comfortable" in this test, but to say that it likely you (or i) couldn’t distinguish the ride character of these two bikes is ridiculous to me. how in the world could you not? i would wager you i could tell which was which holding them by the seat and walking them out to the curb. honestly.
well chameleon you are funny as well. “road bike action”, you say? i actually do recall reading that mag - what utter garbage it was, too.
but, i did not claim it was comfort that i could tell. rather, character. if i handed you a carbon baton and a steel one and an alu one and had you hit mr day in the kneecap tonya harding-style don’t you think you could tell which was which??
i believe you could. why then could you not tell that same feel in a structure made of NINE such batons? did i say " honestly", yet?
Chameleon, I’m really not saying any of this to join in the argument, more just to keep things in perspective.
Aslo not so cool: if the seattube is big enough to swallow a 27.2 mm seatpost, then it is bigger (wider) than it needs to be (unless you like to use really FAT tires). “Swallow” a 27.2 mm seat post vs. what? a 25 mm seatpost. Assuming seat tube wall thickness is the same, we’re talking 2.2 mm or less than a tenth of an inch outside diameter. Same could be said of 1.125" head tube vs. a one inch head tube. Again a very small “actual” difference but looks good as a marketing bullet. The reality is that a bike’s paint could easily be this thick (and add weight at the same time) so if this small difference was REALLY worth it, where are the bikes with no paint?
I am as interested in aero equipment as anyone but I’ll work on my position and my ability to stay in a good position for 40km before I worry about the “thickness” of my head or seat tube (that almost sounds funny…) Looking forward to next year and have a great off-season.
please note, chameleon, that i made no such generalizations as you describe. anyway, as you pride yourself on your research and all i hope most of it is better than this. nearly any experienced cyclist CAN distinguish the ride of typically built bikes with regard to their material. maybe you cannot, i don’t know. i can. i will offer that all it would take would be a washboardy road on a hill and some bikes ( with the same parts, of course) and i could get you do it, also. this assertion by you is patently silly, sir.
Ain’t no myth in my opinion. Aluminium frames are harsh. I’ve rode my classic steel and wife’s titanium Aquila over the same bumpy surface as my aluminium TCR. No compaision. The carbon TCR frame also feels much nicer than the aluminium. I realize their are other factors in ride quality besides just frame material and aluminium has some advantages such as cost and aero tubing capabilities, but the ride is still harsh in comparison when all other things are equal.
…anyway, pardon the interuption. as i say, you or i or tonya harding could tell the difference btween that aegis or a P3 by simply pinging the top tube with our ( her) fingernail. why in the world could we not do the same hitting a crack in the asphalt at 30 MPH ?? answer - we can.
Chameleon, I’ll play a little longer because I’ve got some time. While I haven’t had fluid dynamics since college (I have a mech engineer degree) 12 years ago but I think your observations are a bit simplistic. I do not have any authority on this as I do not have wind tunnel data but I’ll try to be as factual as a can.
Is that the width of the Cervelo aero post? I think it is narrower than that, since the tube into which it inserts is only slightly wider than a 20-22 mm tire. Not sure about this, I’m only referring to standard seat tube diameters.
Or a 12.5% difference in headtube frontal area, at the front of the bike where the air is least disturbed and the greatest potential for aerodynamic improvements exists. I think that would better apply if both shapes were square and you had that difference in widths. Round shapes do not increase drag in a linear fashion meaning it is somewhere between a 0% and a 12.5% difference and much closer to 0%. While I do not believe this, one could argue that the larger head tube is MORE aero because the air has a better chance to attach to it thus a better chance at laminer flow accross the tube (laminer flow, the goal of all aero (and hydro) experts). Afterall, that .125" increase has been determined to create the “optimal” width for a headtube (so the person arguing this could say).
Again, I’m not arguing, just having fun and trying to keep things in perspective.
Not saying there aren’t nice riding aluminium bikes and crappy riding other material bikes. Material isn’t the only factor, but considering the tensile properties of the four main frame materials (I’m not an engineer so please don’t try to take me there) it stands to make common sense that with all things equal, aluminium should ride harsher. This has been my subjective observation. I’ll use the example of the otherwise identical aluminium/carbon Giant TCR’s.
once again you put words in my mouth, chameleon. perhaps it is the FEEL of thwacking the frame with tonya harding’s nicotine stained gloss red fingernail to which i was referring! the resultant vibration, or lack thereof, or other. accentuated by chip seal at25 mph how can you not tel the difference, i wonder?
and, i have read the " once you build a frame from it you can’t tell the difference anymore" argumaent before, also. not wishing to put words in YOUR mouth, but would thisthen also mean that sailors can’t tell the difference between aluminum boats and wooden ones? aeroplane pilots cannot tell the difference between airframes of cro-mo vs balsa wood?
chameleon i am trully at a loss as to why you insist on framing the discussion in value oriented terms such as “harsh”. i have made no such claim one way or the other. i invite you to step outside your own mind and preconceived notions, sir!
even with a too heavy steel bike and a nicely ‘tuned’ alu one a discerning rider can tell the difference - of this i am certain. moreover, i have not given up even you, chamelean, tho i was perhaps too charitable towards tonya, i will admit.
tell you what, grab those bikes and throw them in her rusty pickup truck and drive up the hill on the gravel road out behind her trailer home some day. once up top, hop on each bike and start coasting. stand lightly on the pedals, and grip the bars in similar fashion. now, this will be hard for you - forget about harsh and comfort. instead, just f-e-e-l. feel the buzz of the gravel - feel the surge of harmonics thru the frame. feel the wavefronts passing from pedal to bar to saddle. rock back and forth. ride back up and do the same, flex the frame on the climb. feel the windup. feel the immediacy. feel the compliance. etc. repeat.
as you dine with tonya at hardee’s discuss your findings. i have faith in you both, chameleon! undoubtably you and your new friend will join the ranks of any and all discerning riders since those halcyion days of yore and today and wil be able to group characteristics together by material. and- bonus - you have had a date with tonya harding, besides! just think, if things go really well you can have her go over and beat up mr day next time you and he get into it. you are welcome.
i recall a test in Bicycle Guide ( surely a better reference than Road Bike Action, no?) where they had two bikes - havnoovians, i think - of different steels. one prestige and one - i believe - columbus SL (?). anyway, you get the gist.
We are so hung up on aero gear because they make you way way faster. The hour record for a full on aero bike by chris boardman was about 56 KM. The hour record for a standard round tube, no aero wheel, no aerobar bike is about 50 KM. 6 kilometers per hour for the same rider under about the same conditions.
Ain’t no myth in my opinion. Aluminium frames are harsh. I’ve rode my classic steel and wife’s titanium Aquila over the same bumpy surface as my aluminium TCR. No compaision. The carbon TCR frame also feels much nicer than the aluminium. I realize their are other factors in ride quality besides just frame material and aluminium has some advantages such as cost and aero tubing capabilities, but the ride is still harsh in comparison when all other things are equal.
Cervelo - you are WRONG on this one man. You think all Al bikes are harsh? Tell that to Sean Kelley and his noodle like Vitus. How about the good old Mizuno lugged Al bikes? It is not the material per sé. It is how the material is formed, its thickness and tube diameter. Cannondale, Klein and other Beer can thick Al bikes are harsh…but the only reason that they are so stiff is because when they were using tubing of the same diameter as SLX and EL-OS the Aluminum bikes were noodle like and to cushy for most riders…but not Sean Kelley and his vicious sprints.
You can make any bike composition feel like any other…weight and tube thickeness are what is going to lead you one way or the other. (for example…“Titanium…the ride of steel, the weight of Aluminum” - I think that was a sales line for Merlin or someone years back).
When you stated: “I can distinguish the ride characteristics of most of these bikes, due to differences in their geometry, etc. - however, I can’t tell them apart based on the material from which they are made.” By that, do you propose that if you rode four bikes, with identical geometry, one each made of steel, aluminum, carbon and titanium, with all other components being the same (by the way… why, in your opinion, are virtually all road bike forks carbon?), that you could not tell what materials “from which they are made”? Another interesting twist: Since your argument is that the material is not a factor… how about if each frame’s tubing was the exact same diameter and thickness? That then eliminates virtually every variable other than frame material. What then?
Oh… and correct me if I’m wrong, but you’re in “the cult” aren’t you ? I’ve gleaned from your posts in this thread that you ride a Cervelo… and possibly a P3.
the old ’ vitus’ were comfy so that proves alu isn’t. . . . . . . ." argument, is it?
i had a vitus, and like it. indeed it was comfy as can be. no, it was not harsh. b-u-t had you ever ridden one you would agree that no way in hell would you ever say it felt like a steel bike. guys - it is feel we are talking - alu is not springy. you cannot make a bell or a spring from it. you can feel that. this is true in small tube comfy vitus’, or overbuilt tanks like my old 1982 c-dale or a colnago dream. it is not better or worse or harsher or sweeter. it is…
say it with me now…
d-i-f-f-e-r-e-n-t
everybody and anybody in cycling from tom ritchey to gary klein to craig calfee to your brother in law who raced cat 4 in 1978 who has the slightest clue in how bikes respond knows this. are you guys who think/say otherwise really serious?
…anyway - enuf with that ridiculous topic. such malarkey!
as for the p3 ripoff aegis. very sweet looking. props to them. seems to be a masterstroke, if you ask me, from getting rid of the stupid painintheass internal cables to the standard size seatpost and coming thing 11/8 headtube.
i might go so far to say as they caught gerard asleep at the wheel.
Damn I’m sick of reading generalizations like this. So cerveloguy, aluminum frames are harsh because your TCR rides like shit? Say, is the only difference between your TCR and your “classic steel” frames the frame material?? I’m suuuure the geometries are identical. I’m not saying that aluminum is great in all cases. But I have two Al bikes that I love. One steel bike that I really like and one steel bike that is OK. BTW, the two Al bikes have a totally different ride and feel to them. One of them might be considered harsh. But for a guy who’s 200 pounds it feels just great.
I checked into this bike a few weeks ago and received the same photo and note from the Prez of Aegis. I kept asking for complete geometry and specs (ie, weight for example) and they won’t send it to me. I guess it is top secret! All I could get was instructions that I could order one in size 54cm and that the MSRP was $2200. Perhaps that is a fair price but I sure won’t pony up that many clams without knowing what the specs and geomety are. They told me this info was “unavailable”…huh? Can’t they measure? After that I decided to wait to see to see what the new KM40 looks like. I actually really like the look of this bike despite the oversized headtube. I have always heard good things about this company as well.
Despite assurances from Mr Lizzard, I prefer the ride of carbon. Come ride the crappy roads in my part of California and you will understand.
“road bike action”, you say? i actually do recall reading that mag - what utter garbage it was, too.
? I’ve gleaned from your posts in this thread that you ride a Cervelo… and possibly a P3.