You are a tough one, Mr. Tree Dweller, aren’t you 
I’m not asking about the mythical writers/riders, I was asking you about your claim.
(Sigh…) Carbon forks: “ride”, not weight :-0
And by your last statement, it’s obvious that we’ve lost you ;-(
“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.”
Whooooahhh there Pooks. Please reread my posts. I admitted that there are good riding AL bikes and crappy ones made of other materials. My P2K rides not too bad. What I did say is ride an AL and carbon TCR and then compare the difference. Here you have two identical bikes and the only differentiating factor is the frame material.
Finally some sensibility!
Yes, the Giant TCR aluminum and carbon bikes have the exact same geometry (and for that matter even look exactly alike) and the difference in “feel” “ride” “comfort”, whatever you want to call it, between two identically equipped bikes is pretty remarkable. Paint them both Chameleon green and I can tell you in a heartbeat which is carbon and which is aluminum.
Chameleon… you’ve got a lot of spunk and it’s fun to watch you fight back, but I think he’s got you cornered… time to change colors and blend in
“Yes, there is a reason - myths die hard.”
Ain’t no myth in my opinion. Aluminium frames are harsh. … but the ride is still harsh in comparison when all other things are equal.
This is the real problem with this whole thread - all things are never equal. This makes the argument (discussion?) ridiculous. I have been doing this a while and have had a number of bikes, and a number of bike fits, and it is almost impossible to isolate variables enough to make the kind of generalizations, either way, that are being made in this thread.
In the past 15 years I have had or have euro steel, american steel, Power V carbon Softride, Ti Litespeed, Al Felt, and now an Al P3. With out question my subjective opinion is that the P3 is by far the most comfortable of the bikes I have had on any road surface, including the softride. So, does this mean that this Aluminum bike is therefore the least harsh of all frame materials? Of course not.
There are many, many factors that go into bike comfort including the knowledge and skill of the builder, geometry, components, tires, fit, etc. Probably the biggest variable in the comfort of my P3 is the continual dialling in of my fit over many years.
Geeze, I thought arguing religion was tough!
siigggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
well whatever, tri-heads. you can’t tell steel from carbon from alu - fine.
i still do not know how you cannot, tho. what are you DOING out there, anyway? so one steel bike is rough and one is soft - can’t you just say note " say, THIS bike, while quite obviously possessing the character of steel SP bike is kinda rough" and " what ho, this here bike, again obviously with many ferrous qualities and made of ultrafoco steel feels a tad flexy"
ditto that vitus vs P3.
ditto that blade vs ghisallo
ditto…nevermind.
speaking of puzzled, i am totally puzzled as to how you guys can argue about the “feel” of sew-ups vs hi-qual clinchers, but can’t tell nor even admit there IS a difference between carbon and alu! go figure you whacky tri-heads!!!
"Chameleon… you’ve got a lot of spunk and it’s fun to watch you fight back, but I think he’s got you cornered… time to change colors and blend in "
Chameleon hasn’t said anything that I disagree with. Just because his opinion is in the minority does not make it wrong. I own 12 bikes made of carbon, steel, and aluminum. The only bikes that have a significantly different ride quality are the two Softrides. I suppose the carbon bike might feel a little different if I was to whack a telephone pole with it, but I generally try to avoid that.
Do they ride differently?? Yes. Of course. Does that mean that Aluminum is always more harsh? In this case yes. In all cases, absolutely not. Cerveloguy, I did read the rest of your subsequent posts (after I posted), so I guess I was a bit overboard. But there seems to be a popular perspective on this forum and in cycling in general that likes to oversimplify things into X is better than Y. I get the feeling that there many who would have no problem with the following logic:
I was talking to two guys the other day. One was 5’8", the other was 6’2". The guy who was 5’8" was a total jerk. Therefore all guys who are 5’8" are total jerks.
“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? In two of the tests, the Hooker aerobars were used (which obviously favors the Hooker). I don’t know about the third test.”
Well how many other differences were there? IMO, the fact that they had different handlebars for different bikes essentially invalidates the tests.
Just curious Mr. Chameleon, would your two aluminum bikes happen to be a Soloist and an Arcole?
“The Cult” - LOL, that is a classic! What seems to be lost here is the many many articles that have stated for years that you can make any material feel like anything you want it to - weight is the only real issue. A small tube - thicker walled AL bike will be much more flexy than a over size tube thin wall frame - pond for pound. You can make carbon feel like anything…just anything…but with lower weight and more flex you may tend to crack (remember when OCLV first came out? “Optimum Cracking Low Value Carbon Fiber”).
Sometimes I feel like I really really need a Cervelo…then I just look away from that logo up there at the top of my screen…
…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.
Of course, but this has nothing to do with ride quality, does it? Ride the two bikes with earplugs: can anyone then tell the difference?
Ken Lehner
but the ride is still harsh in comparison when all other things are equal.
I’m curious: what about the frame causes this harshness? Does the frame itself bend (like the BB moves relative to the head tube and rear dropout)? Where does this bending occur? What is the magnitude of this movement, and how does it compare to the compression of the tire, saddle, and your shorts?
Ken Lehner
This argument about frame material is a recurrent one in any cycling forum.
Let’s discuss science and facts:
If the difference between carbon and aluminum is so clear, then it should be easy to measure it scientifically wouldn’t it ? (and I don’t talk about material properties, but about the properties of bicycle frames with complete equipment).
As far as I know, there is no scientific proof that exists that shows that one material is superior to another in terms of riding characteristics or ‘harshness’ characteristics. In fact the little testing that has been done that’s available indicates just what Chameleon has been saying. Vertical compliance of double-diamond bicycle frames is negligible compared to tires, saddle, wheels, seat post and other equipment. Torsional stifness is another thing, but is related to frame design and not matrerial per se.
If carbon was so much more confortable, don’t you think that companies like Kestrel, Trek or Giant would gladly publish scientific results proving so ?
The big advantage of carbon is the ability to vary frame characteristics three-dimensionally and potentially maximize torsional stifness while minimizing weight. Carbon offers the most freedom to bike builders.
Essentially, handling is a function of geometry, torsional stiffness is a function of tube size, thickness and welding/bonding in the bottom bracket and head tube areas, while comfort is a function of tires, wheels, saddle and seatpost.
You really want to test harshness ? Try riding your favorite bike with the following wheels:
Standard spoked wheels, 32 13-gauge spokes with Vittoria 170 psi clinchers 20mm wide.
Standard spoked wheels, 32 16-gauge spokes with a 700x32 80 psi clincher tire.
With the former set any but the flattest road will be a challenge whereas with the latter set you’ll feel ready to take your kestrel or cervelo offroad.
See http://www.sheldonbrown.com/rinard/ for some info on frame and wheel testing and links.
Francois in Montreal
siigggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
well whatever, tri-heads. you can’t tell steel from carbon from alu - fine.
i still do not know how you cannot, tho. what are you DOING out there, anyway? so one steel bike is rough and one is soft - can’t you just say note " say, THIS bike, while quite obviously possessing the character of steel SP bike is kinda rough" and " what ho, this here bike, again obviously with many ferrous qualities and made of ultrafoco steel feels a tad flexy"
ditto that vitus vs P3.
ditto that blade vs ghisallo
ditto…nevermind.
speaking of puzzled, i am totally puzzled as to how you guys can argue about the “feel” of sew-ups vs hi-qual clinchers, but can’t tell nor even admit there IS a difference between carbon and alu! go figure you whacky tri-heads!!!
francois at no time have i said one is more comfotable or more harsh than the other. i have said that a discerning rider can tell one from from the other, is all. things such as harmonic resonance, and spring, and mass distribution, swing weight, vibration, etc al are groupable by material, even in overlap. that is it. and, as for the fingernail thwack on the top tube, that too is more than the sound - again there are resonace issues which input such as that elicit which are - again - groupable by material. you cannot make aluminum ring like a bell. you cannot make steel less dense. you cannot make CF possess a grain structure. why in the world you think you can’t then feel all this out on the raod is simply beyond me entirely - you DO ride bikes, right? puzzling, to say the least. as a friend has said to me in a PM " some of these guys can’t tell the the diff between a conti and a michelin. everybody knows all you need is one ride" .
Yes I do ride bikes, quite extensively in fact and have been doing so for quite some time. I have owned several aluminum and steel bikes and have ridden a few titanium and carbon bikes (not owned however). Can I feel the difference between the different bikes ? Of course ! Can I relate this difference to frame material ? No !
The reason is that any real difference in frame characteristics that is TRULY linked to frame material, is, according to all scientific data I have seen, orders of magnitude smaller than differences linked to geometry, frame design and construction, and, or course, other parts of the bikes.
The argument that you bring: ‘aluminum and titanium are different materials, have different properties, and, therefore, bicycles built from these materials must exhibit different behaviour’ seems logical but is flawed.
This is the same reasoning behind the popular thinking that toilet bowls flush clockwise in the northern hemisphere and counterclockwise in the other. While true that the Coriolis effect is opposed, at the scale of the toilet bowl this force is 10^6 times smaller than other forces acting (much much smaller than you spitting in the bowl at the time of flushing).
Again, if the difference is so obvious, you should be able to devise a simple experiment to measure the difference that the rider feels either at his feet, butt or hands. Cyclists have been arguing this for as long as newsgroups exist on the internet (and that predates the WWW by quite a number of years), and yet nobody has been able to measure this ‘obvious’ difference.
Francois in Montreal
What about a Titanium bike with a Carbon rear and and fork…with an Aluminum seat post? Better make sure it has steel seat rails to soften things up…
fair enuf francois. the experiment would be easy enuf as you say and i would bet the farm on it. if they were mountain bikes on a washboard road i would double the stakes. your own argument about the other componants is fine, as far as it goes, which is not far enuf. you can feel wheels and geometry diference but not the resonace and other qualities of a frame that many others can. mores the pity - or perhaps you are fortunate as now all you need do is find something stiff and light and cheap and you are done. i think i could train you different given that washboard road and those mountain bikes myself.
as for the orders of magnitude thing again i see that as incomplete. cetainly if we lok at something like a motorcycle we can see a host of very violently high inputs coming into the rider, who can still filter these out and focus on a specific, albeit smaller aspect of “ride” such as tire pressure or rebound damping on the rear shock or wind buffeting. if ben bostrom can do any one of those things or finer leaned over at 120 mph with his knee in the curb in turn 5 at road america i think an experience bicycle rider can do similar with a fraction of the input on a bike.
on second thought - make that the kink at RA. if ben was in 5 at 120 MPH indeed he would have bigger fish to fry, so to speak! and, admittedly he would have a hard time filtering out the input from his rear rebound setting as he plunged headlong into the airfence. so, you have me there francois! i agree that in the case of a rider crashing off the side of the road all frame materials may well blend into the undistinguishable. 
but on the road, i, many, maybe even most - and again, even you i bet can learn to filter and tell. bonus, it is fun, too.
but anyway, i can just imagine how well it would play for ben if he came back in from a test and triied to point out to the crewcheif that he was unable to distinguish the rear damper setting or the swingarm pivot change or the ride height adustment because all those things were of orders of magnitude less than so mant other forces. not so well, i would say.
Regarding the Bostrom analogy, the swingarm is going to move in a linear fashion whereas a tire can squirm in 3 dimensions. Those variables are easy to separate, as are preload, rebound damping, etc.
But the better analogy is: would Bostrom come in from the track complaining about how his aluminum swingarm did not “feel” as good as his carbon fiber swingarm? Assuming equal torsional stiffness, it is obvious he would not be able to tell the difference.
Personally, I’m more of a Bayliss fan.
A couple of interesting articles:
http://www.rickdenney.com/july_1999.htm
http://www.rickdenney.com/august_1999.htm
He states:
“The epoxy does more than just hold everything together, though, because it damps high-frequency vibration. Like metal, composite materials are very elastic at low frequencies, such as we see with pedaling and riding over big bumps, but plastic at high frequencies. When you tap a metal frame with your fingernail, you’ll hear a ring. With a composite frame, you’ll hear a thud. It turns out that the ring of metal frames is in roughly the same frequency as the texture of the road, and metal frames ring more than we realize when we ride them on rough pavements. Composite frames are therefore quieter. This may explain why carbon composite frames have a reputation for a smoother ride. We feel the buzz of road texture especially in our hands and elbows, and the plastic in the composite absorbs vibration at those frequencies. This may also explain some of the perceived harshness of aluminum, because aluminum in a fat-tubed bike may actually transmit more road buzz than other designs.”
Just doing my part in getting this thread to break 100 posts