You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
My Banshee Rune and Transition Scout weighed as much as my Cotic Flaremax for sure. My Scout had carbon wheels and everything. For me, the weight is absolutely worth it - the Cotic makes me go for just one more lap all the time, it's a lot of fun.
Having to write marketing blurb to sell your products doesn’t mean that the engineering behind them isn’t true. I know that all too well - I’m currently trying to translate a patent onto a new consumer product into press releases and website content.
all I really wanted to know was if the weight burden of a steel FS was worth it in terms of ride and performance in the ‘real world’.
It doesn't work like that. Cotic make nice riding bikes that happen to be made of steel. Other manufacturers make nice riding bikes out of other materials. I don't think steel bikes are inherently superior, it's just another choice.
after that conclusive test it’s obvious
a crosser is cheaper
a crosser is faster
Didn't Gee Atherton race Dave Knight down the Fort William track, Gee won by quite a margin. Dave reckoned it would have been closer on a 125 as there was nowhere to use the power anyway.
Does the fact that the Cotic FS bikes have an alloy, not steel, rear end have any bearing on this sciencefest of a thread?
TBF Cy does address this in his (selectively quoted throughout this thread) article.
Paraphrasing massively again; the general goals are some degree of weight saving, stiffness to improve the rear suspension motion and pivot alignment/wear hence an aluminium back end and an increase in the diameter of the steel seat tube (which is subject to the most torque).
And then as a wee bit of what you might call "lateral compliance" betwixed the head and seat tubes is desired, a minor weight penalty is paid for a steel front end, but equivalent strength is obtained when compared to larger dia, thicker walled (hence stiffer) aluminum...
TBH it's a fair proposition, an FS frame that uses different materials for different components based on the different requirements for each part rather than just using the same material throughout. It's an approach common in lots of other applications (including motor vehicles and motorsports). It's also notable that some other, bigger bike manufacturers are now mixing welded aluminum front ends with composite swing arms...
People seem to have become a little too caught up with the "material" rather than the function the whole system is trying to achieve...
TBH I'm pretty sure most people lack the sensitivity to actually perceive much difference. That doesn't mean it's not there or indeed benefits the rider, but maybe it's simply better to ride the bloody thing and decide if it's "right" on that basis, Marketing and Engineering be damned...
OP - the only way to really answer your question is to ride one. Steel has advantages and disadvantages, as do all other frame materials. Geometry, however will be a much bigger factor in how a bike rides. And the weight burden might be 500g or it might be 2kg, how important that is depends on what riding you do. Also weight in the frame is a much better thing than weight elsewhere, you'll find with a heavier frame the suspension is able to perform better. It might seem a simple question but it's not a simple answer, and truthfully the only person who can answer it, is you.
Make a list of bikes, and try and get demos on them. Only then will you know if you prefer steel to carbon to alloy. But don't forget that frame material is just one factor in making a bike.
I’m pretty sure most people lack the sensitivity to actually perceive much difference.
They are probably not woke enough to breath with the trails.
Does the fact that the Cotic FS bikes have an alloy, not steel, rear end have any bearing on this sciencefest of a thread?
Half the rear end, alu chainstays and steel seatstays.
They are probably not woke enough to breath with the trails.
I suppose you deserve some credit for staying here making lame attempts at jokes instead of just disappearing after you got so comprehensively owned.
It’s posts like this that support the view that STW is full of d!cks
The OP asks a sensible question - some people give valid opinions - then someone pops up with no experience but lambasts all other opinions as invalid
cue two pages of rants (in between several reasonable posts) and the OP leaves none the wiser
mumsnet anyone?
So what’s the benefit of steel FS over carbon or ali on a trail come XC type bike?
That was the op's original question tmb467. And it can't really be answered. Steel can be used to make a great bike as can other materials. Everything is just personal preference.
All the chat though is just how forums are, "talking shops" where people can argue and express opinion, that's the point of them.
I've recent purchased a short travel steel FS in the form of a Swarf contour, I bought one because the design features in my opinion are well thought out for the type of riding I do, I test rode one and it felt awesome and it feels right to support a smaller UK bike designer that's handbuilding in Scotland,.Oh yeah and its ****ing beautiful.
Whoever said that people buy with their heart was right, there are many aspects to what makes a great bike..what they are constructed of is just one factor. If the latest Santa Cruz carbon bling is your things knock yourself out, they just dont ignite any passion in me...I prefer steel, just because. Go ride one and make your own mind up.
For what its worth: I didn't rate STW Wills Contour review, Trevor@ Enduro Mag review was more inline with the bike I test rode.
Well let's have some pics then!
With the paint and bits on, you big tease
All in good time my man,.. it's still getting the finishing touches @Swarf( and I'm still arseing about collecting parts)
Joe from Starling explains frame stiffness and why a bit of give us better. He’s an aerospace engineer with lots of experience with Carbon fibre, so probably knows what he is on about.
I have a Swoop on order, the custom geometry was a big thumbs up but as I approach middle age and have a bit of arthritis I wanted a more compliant frame than my usual super stiff alloy bikes. That’s what made me look at steel. I have been impressed by the feel of my steel hardtail and wanted a full sus version of that.
I had never thought about lateral stiffness before I saw this video but it makes sense...........we shall shall see!
That starling video is irritating me.
A force at 45deg is 1/√2 =0.707, not a half, that would be 30deg?
He's right though, there isn't a quantifiable optimum (that's known of anyway), but some is better than either none or too much. Even the big brands are realising this, saw a press release the other day claiming the new bike was indeed less stiff than the old model.
Hols2's car analogy is wrong on two points, one a car can control its suspension in all sorts of axis and angles, a bike just has a 2d axle path and axle rotation, a car has vertical, lateral, fore/aft, axial and camber components to it's movement. So a lot of the sideways give is already there. Secondly cars have rubber bushes designed to take out the small high frequency movements which effect grip. Cars without bushes or with stiffer bushes trade more feedback for less compliance.
Secondly cars have rubber bushes designed to take out the small high frequency movements which effect grip.
Road cars do this to reduce noise, vibration, and harshness, not for grip. Race cars don't do this. One of the first things that production car racers do is to replace the rubber bushings with rose joints, which have no give. This makes them unbearably noisy because all the vibrations from the road are transferred directly to the cabin. The other big thing with turning a road car into a track car is a roll cage, which will be attached to the suspension pick ups to increase the stiffness of the body shell. Of course the rules require a cage on safety grounds, but the main concern in designing the cage will be maximizing the stiffness of the body shell. Suspension performance is improved by mounting the suspension to very rigid mounts. You want the springs and dampers to control the movement of the wheels, not flex in the chassis or bushings.
That starling video is irritating me.
A force at 45deg is 1/√2 =0.707, not a half, that would be 30deg?
He’s right though, there isn’t a quantifiable optimum (that’s known of anyway), but some is better than either none or too much. Even the big brands are realising this, saw a press release the other day claiming the new bike was indeed less stiff than the old model.
Hols2’s car analogy is wrong on two points, one a car can control its suspension in all sorts of axis and angles, a bike just has a 2d axle path and axle rotation, a car has vertical, lateral, fore/aft, axial and camber components to it’s movement. So a lot of the sideways give is already there. Secondly cars have rubber bushes designed to take out the small high frequency movements which effect grip. Cars without bushes or with stiffer bushes trade more feedback for less compliance.
Maybe you should offer Joe the benefit of your far superior engineering knowledge? He seems pretty open to input and maybe he could learn a thing or 2 about frame building from you?
Hmm that said, his bikes do get rave reviews for both build and ride quality and he used to be an aerospace engineer so maybe he knows his stuff after all?
his bikes do get rave reviews for both build and ride quality
The disagreement here is not about ride quality. It's about the claim that a steel frame will flex so much that it will enhance the ability of a 6" travel suspension frame to keep its rear wheel tracking the ground. That's marketing bollocks.
The frames are steel because they'd have to be built in Asia if they were aluminium, so the marketing benefit of a boutique brand would be lost. To make a steel frame as stiff as an aluminium one would be very heavy, so the marketing guys came up with "breathing with the trails" as a "it's not a bug, it's a feature" comeback.
You can change the feel of a bike by changing tyres, tweaking tyre pressures, adjusting spoke tension, changing wheels, adjusting the suspension air pressures/spring rate/preload/damping etc, changing handlebars and grips, changing seatpost and saddle, etc. Unless you do really exhaustive comparison testing of all those things to isolate the effect of the frame material, you really don't know what it is that's causing one bike to feel harsher than another. FFS, if you change the tyre pressures by 5 psi, the bike can go from horrible to great and vice-versa.
I did ask kelvin to post his notes from all his exhaustive testing of prototypes, but he must have been busy, I haven't seen anything yet.
On a two wheeler when it leant over the bump forces will be vertical but the suspension travel will be at an angle. Especially with telescopic forks this leads to binding in the suspension components and thus reduced small bump compliance
Racing motorcycles found this to be a limiting factor quite a while ago and had to actually reduce stiffness in frames as the superstiff frames they had developed led to adverse effects when hitting bumps when leaned right over - mainly chatter IIRC
Of course this is also exacerbated by the very low profile tyres used which have greater lateral stiffness
This effect must be present in MTBs to some extent - whetherit actually affects most of us I doubt.
So some lateral flex in frames will certainly have an effect on feel and performance when hitting bumps when leaned over and may well make it feel less harsh
My ti bike is incredibly harsh showing its not all about materials by any means - it has short thick and straight chainstays and seatstays which is where the harshness comes from.
I just love the slim and simple shapes of steel frames and I particularly like the way the top tube and seatstays line up on the Contour, beautiful. And I also like the idea of owning a bike from a British company. But I'm a tight Yorkshireman so I'll be sticking with my MK1 Rocket till there are more on the 2nd hand market...
And I've got a City and Guilds in hairdressing so I'm qualified to judge style, shape and colour 😉
I just love the slim and simple shapes of steel frames
When I'm riding a bike, I don't care how it looks. I'm the guy with zip ties holding all the brake hoses and gear cables on because it guarantees they stay put even if it looks like shit. I do enjoy nice looking bikes, but only for looking at, not for riding. The point here is that people are spouting marketing bollocks about steel frames improving the ability of the rear suspension to keep the wheels tracking the ground because of "breathing with the trail". I call bullshit on that and I'm still waiting for kelvin to post his extensive notes from all the prototypes he rode while perfecting the breathing thing.
The frames are steel because they’d have to be built in Asia if they were aluminium
no they wouldnt orange build a shedload of non steel frames maybe someone should tell them
Orange build their frames by welding together pieces of sheet metal. They don't do the complex hydroforming stuff that the Asian manufacturers do because it would be mega-expensive to tool up for that. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Cotic have their aluminium rear ends manufactured in Taiwan. Building aluminium bikes is a bit trickier than steel, AFAIK, so doing the aluminium bits in the UK would need investment in factory equipment beyond what is needed for steel. Hence the outsourcing to Asia. It's not that it can't be done in the UK, it's just that it wouldn't be economical for a boutique manufacturer.
Maybe you should offer Joe the benefit of your far superior engineering knowledge? He seems pretty open to input and maybe he could learn a thing or 2 about frame building from you?
Very little idea about frame building, its the trigonometry that I think is wrong. A force applied at 45deg is balanced by two forces at 45deg to it but perpendicular to each other equal to 1/√2 of the original force.
Also if you were to measure forces in a corner you would have gravity (vertically down), the cornering force (centripetally) on top of that, and impacts from the ground at any angle (they might be vertical, they could be horizontal in any direction)
“It’s about the claim that a steel frame will flex so much that it will enhance the ability of a 6″ travel suspension frame to keep its rear wheel tracking the ground. That’s marketing bollocks.”
If you remove your massive head from your arse, take your blinkers off and actually try to learn something, you’ll quickly find that the chassis stiffness is critical to the handling behaviour of ALL vehicles and for two-wheeled vehicles it is an established fact that too much longitudinal torsional stiffness has a negative impact on cornering grip and predictability.
Just actually THINK about it. What the hell do you think happens when you take a 3kg frame made of carbon, aluminium or steel, attach it to some wheels and then have 80+kg of human levering most of their mass through a lever attached to the BB, lean it right on its side so the suspension isn’t working in the right direction and then hammer it through a bumpy corner pulling well over 1G? I mean, how obvious is it to anyone with an ounce of engineering intuition that the frame will flex and twist and that that will help it grip the ground?
I’m no great rider and I can tell the difference between 20 and 22psi in my front tyre, it’s really obvious. And that’s on a bike with 160mm forks. Watch a super slow-mo of a DH bike in a corner and it’s twisting and bending.
This NOT about steel vs other materials - it’s about how you use them. Steel is vastly stiffer than aluminium as a material. A bike that is too stiff is not good in rough trails. The fork needs to be stiff not to bind. The rear suspension components need to be stiff and only move as designed. But BB to head tube needs to have some perceptible give under riding loads.
I will never cease to be amazed at how some people struggle to understand the complexity of real world scenarios. I mean, if you’ve got 160mm of travel why does the tyre pressure matter, or the wheel stiffness, or the bar stiffness or the grips? Come on, wake the **** up!
All the cotic frames up until this one weren't UK made, so on that front they could have had them made from aluminium if they wanted. Their first FS bike was aluminium, so they could have had them made from aluminium if they wanted. There's clearly something about the steel beyond 'make it in the UK'. From the original rocket tech stuff it's initially about getting the main pivots/seat tube stiff enough, but you're perhaps a bit off saying it's just about UK manufacture.
The combined forces must run from the center of mass to the tyre contact patch otherwise you would fall off. Unless your body is massively misaligned with the bike (i.e. you have the bike vertical and your body hanging off to the inside of the corner), the forces in a corner will still be running close to through the centerline of the bike, so the suspension and frame shouldn't be twisted massively.
If you have the bike leaned right over and hit a bump hard enough to twist the frame to the same order of magnitude as the suspension travel (i.e you are cornering on the flat with the bike laid right over and run across a large root or rock), then you have awesome ninja MTB skills and I don't think it will make any difference whether you ride a steel or aluminium frame. I'm just a mere mortal, so trying something like that would see me skidding down the trail on my arse.
"Unless your body is massively misaligned with the bike (i.e. you have the bike vertical and your body hanging off to the inside of the corner), the forces in a corner will still be running close to through the centerline of the bike, so the suspension and frame shouldn’t be twisted massively."
There's your first mistake. When you ride a turn on a MTB the bike is leant over further than the rider and the rider places most of their weight through the outside pedal and the inside grip. A good rider will constantly weight and unweight the bike to find grip, unloading before turning and then placing maximum load at the moment of highest lateral acceleration. That's how you corner fast, you generate momentary downforce when the most grip is needed. You cannot do this as effectively if your centre of mass stays in the same plane as the centreline of the wheels.
"If you have the bike leaned right over and hit a bump hard enough to twist the frame to the same order of magnitude as the suspension travel "
The twist in the frame doesn't need to be of the same order of magnitude as the suspension travel for it to matter. Not even close. How much does a DH tyre carcass conform mid-corner? And yet riders care about their tyre pressure to less than 1psi?
If you have the bike leaned right over and hit a bump hard enough to twist the frame to the same order of magnitude as the suspension travel
…your bike is broken. Try another straw man… or except that, no matter what the material, stiffness in different parts of a frame are often tuned, rather than the same ultimate stiffness all around being the goal.
It’s about the claim that a steel frame will flex so much that it will enhance the ability of a 6″ travel suspension frame to keep its rear wheel tracking the ground.
That's not what's being claimed, really.
Suspension only moves up and down, not side to side. When riding down a rocky trail, the rocks aren't all neat perpendicular steps - they are strewn haphazardly all over the place. The surfaces your wheels hit are sloping at all angles. These will present sideways forces to your wheels. Much of that is absorbed by tyres and probably most of it by the rims. That's why many complain that carbon wheels are 'too stiff'. If too much of this sideways force is transmitted to the bike it's going to be pulled sideways all over the place as you ride. From your moving frame of reference, this would feel like the bike being pulled all over the place. On a suspension bike the swingarm probably twists about the fore-aft axis too, which would also absorb some sideways impacts. When the bike is leant over, this flex would also be helpful in stopping the bike jumping around too much. I'm guessing this would be the biggest but not the only advantage of having a little twisting flex available in the frame. I'm sure there are videos somewhere of frame flex in a FS.
I am not an engineer but I do have a Physics degree. And whenever someone makes absolute pronouncements like you have hols2 I am immediately sceptical!
EDIT That's not to say that stiffness wouldn't give benefits elsewhere - like power transfer when pedalling etc. So it comes down to where you ride and what you like. Just test the bike and pick the one that feels best.
You cannot do this as effectively if your centre of mass stays in the same plane as the centreline of the wheels.
The center of mass of the combined bike and rider has to stay reasonably closely aligned with the tyre contact patches or else the bike will rotate around the contact patch and you will crash. You adjust for small changes in this over bumps through the steering and adjusting your body weight, but you can't have the sum of the forces massively misaligned or you will crash. That's just brute physics.
My scepticism is that the flex in a steel frame will be so much bigger than in an aluminium or carbon fiber frame that it will assist the rear wheel in tracking the ground in a bike with 6" of rear suspension travel. I'm not saying frames don't flex, just that they don't flex several inches. I'm also not saying that the resonance properties aren't different, just that I don't believe that the supposed extra flex in a steel frame is going to have a positive effect on the rear suspension.
How much does a DH tyre carcass conform mid-corner?
A lot more than a steel top tube does. Watch some videos, it's amazing how much tyres roll around. Or just pump your tyres up to 100 psi and see how it feels when they don't flex.
Although, to be fair, my first suspension bike was a 1999 Spesh FSR. Goddam that thing flexed a lot. Pedalled well, but was always worried it would snap in half. It eventually snapped in half on the cast section at the front of the chainstay, just behind the lower pivot. Great little bike, but that flex was really disconcerting.
I’m not saying frames don’t flex, just that they don’t flex several inches
Well, we can all agree with that strawman. What a waste of time.
Well, we can all agree with that strawman.
That strawman was what the disagreement was about. So when can we expect you to post all your detailed technical records of the prototype testing you like to boast about?
I'll repeat myself…
I’m a very average rider. My notes would be something like “whoop” or “woah”…of little use to anyone.
Feel free to …
… whatever.
If you want to believe that no one is doing real world testing, including tuning the stiffness of different parts of a frame, no matter what materials they are using, so be it. Why should I care?
So "breathing with the trail" is just some bullshit someone made up?
Edit. Another sneaky stealth edit there kelvin.
Time waster.
So it is just marketing bollocks then?
Descriptive words are wasted on you.
Descriptive words are wasted on you.
No, nothing will be wasted. They will be saved and recycled. Fire away.
This thread has reminded me that I used to really enjoy long analytical debates about how mountain bikes work (or don't). Since getting the FlareMax though, I find that I've lost all interest. I don't know why it works. I'm not entirely convinced that Cy fully understands why it works. But work it most definitely does.
Are all great mountain bikes made of steel? Of course not. It just so happens that in over 40 years of riding all my favourite bikes (road, hardtail, fat and now full-suss) happened to be steel. But that may be coincidence or it may be that I like the look and that biases me towards them. Either way, I'm prefectly happy to accept that there are great bikes made of aluminium, carbon and titianiun and if that's your bag, knock yourself out.
I can't really adress the OP's original question though as I can't really understand why anybody would care about 2lb here or there on the frame weight. My weight varies by that much from day to day (and during a day). Heck it probably varies by that much during a long ride (and more when you factor in the water that I'm drinking), yet I don't notice it. So it's not a matter of whether the "advantages" of steel outweigh the weight penalty for me as the weight penalty is simply too small for me to be able to detect. Getting the right tyres, the right pressures and getting your suspension set up properly for the trails you are riding are all so much more important that a few lb on the weight of the bike.
Fire away.
Others have tried, I'm not bothering to waste any more time on you.
I can’t really understand why anybody would care about 2lb here or there on the frame weight.
This has been done to death. You don't notice it much on your body but it is noticeable to many people on the bike due to the way some people move the bike around as they ride. To me, 2lbs on the frame is a lot. On its own it's noticeable but if you want a light bike all the components need to be light. Altogether they make a huge difference. You may not like it, but you might - that's why there is a choice on the market today. And it's not a problem.
Oh dear, are you angry about something? Hope it wasn't anything I said.
I don’t know why it works. I’m not entirely convinced that Cy fully understands why it works.
You haven't been paying attention. It's because "breathing with the trail."
Funnily enough I don't mind the “breathing with the trail”. Yes, of course, it's a bit of marketing speak. Trying to use a nice descriptive phrase instead of equally meaningless numbers. But I can kind of see where it comes from. Not that steel bikes are the only ones to do this. My old 26" Five was a flexy old thing and that was part of its appeal.
@molgrips it's a fair point. To be honest we've probably done most of it to death really. I do think it depends a fair bit on how you ride. I really don't notice a couple of lb on the frame weight. For example, if I had a bottle on the bike I couldn't tell (in a blind test) whether it was full or empty. I'm definitely "old skool XC" though. Other people, who throw the bike around more than me, may be able to tell, which is fine. For them, bike weight is important, but for me, it really is irrelevant (within fairly broad limits). Some of my favourite bikes were the heaviest, but again that's probably because I like bulldozing through suff.
The combined forces must run from the center of mass to the tyre contact patch otherwise you would fall off.
all except bump forces - they art vertically ( or slightly off it the bump is uneven)
All the other forces act thru the line from cog to contact patch but hit a bump - it kicks the wheel vertically upwards.
hit a bump – it kicks the wheel vertically upwards.
Yes, the rider needs to make adjustments to steering and body position over bumpy corners or they will crash. Thing is, we do this without even realizing what we are doing. If we had to do it consciously, we would react too slowly and would crash.
Crikey the Big Hitters have been busy on this thread!
Hols - and that is where lateral compliance in the frame helps the bike be more settled. As I said above in the motorcycle world they found that you could end up with frames that are two laterally stiff and it led to chatter so ducatis amongst others actually reduced lateral stiffness of their frames to keep the wheels on the ground more.
is the flounce in full bounce you reckon
So “breathing with the trail” is just some bullshit someone made up?
Well of course, but it's hardly a terrible bit of marketing Woo, I've seen worse.
You mentioned earlier that you are a Structural Engineer hols, why not actually analyse the differnces in behaviour of these structural elements?
You could work out the respective section properties for say a 32mm OD / 0.8mm thk steel tube and the same for a 55mm OD / 2mm thk Aluminium tube and work through their respective behavious when subjected to simple bending and torque load cases, just to see how much deflection you'd be likely to see and at what point each tube would go plastic (Say on a 600mm long tube?) work out the weight differences and then at least you've quantified the actual differences in structural terms.
How how the properties of a downtube and top tube contribute to a given "Bicycle Chasis" as a dynamic structure has a whole heap of additional analysis for an interested individual but probably massive overkill for anyone not actually making one...
Of course without that comparison you're simply casting doubt on the claims made by Cotic for the frame without really knowing how it actually behaves...
Personally I don't believe a bicycle is subject to perfectly symetrical loading in a single plane so there is some merit to the idea that the frame as a structure which provides some degree of elastic response when subjected to side loads or torque along its length may have benefits, or that some elements (say a swingarm) being stiffer than others (say the front triangle) could help the ride in some way... Discuss (even more).
You mentioned earlier that you are a Structural Engineer hols
No, I said I studied engineering. I hated it and got a degree in political philosophy instead, intending to become a journalist. Instead I got a job as a technical writer for a company that had contracts with some well-known Asian companies. My job was to work with engineers who were posted to European subsidiaries and help them sort out their English technical documentation. Not full on technical research, but more like sales material targeted at other engineers. Some of it was cool. I worked with guys who designed nuclear power plants and the control systems for the early Prius, but most of it was mundane stuff like factory automation equipment and car parts. My bosses didn't know the difference between structural engineering and electronics, it was all just "engineering" to them, so I got all the "engineering" stuff. It was really challenging for a couple of years, I had to sit down and learn the basic concepts of a bunch of different fields, but then it was just soul sucking boring (plus I was working for filthy profiteering capitalist pigs). I lasted six years at that before the boredom got too much to bear. Made me really, really glad I got out of engineering before it was too late. That gave me leads to my current career, which is slightly technical, but not engineering. Basically counting things and doing really simple Excel stuff.
...degree in political philosophy...
In that case (coupled with your meandering career history) I think I'll just disregard your opinions on pretty much all topics... TTFN.
For example, if I had a bottle on the bike I couldn’t tell (in a blind test) whether it was full or empty.
I could on some bikes I think - funnily enough on my rigid bike I think it's the most stark. Given the fashion for going packless and loading up one's bike I thought I'd try it. I put two bottles and a seat pack for tools on my rigid (steel) bike with carbon forks, whilst riding around the Ridgeway area. If you're not familiar, it's a by-word for tame non-technical riding which it is, however it's not quite that simple. The chalk dries rock hard, and ends up being very lumpy. So in places you get a lot of very small bumps, sort of like washboard but not. With the weight on me, I was able to hold the bars lightly and the bike would buck around under me and I could go faster; but with all the weight on the bike it was less able to buck and skip over the bumps so made it far more laborious. I felt like I was crashing into every bump rather than skimming.
Tangent anyway - it would have been more relevant if I'd compared an alu rigid bike alongside it 🙂
I could tell you what material the bottle cage bolts were 😀
coupled with your meandering career history
I don't really think of it as a career so much as random leaps towards whatever option seems to involve the least work. On the bright side, I have contributed massively to Wikipedia, so it's not like I've just been wasting time slacking off.
No, I said I studied engineering. I hated it and got a degree in political philosophy instead
Were the philosophy and politics classes done separately? It’s just that you seem to be much better at the latter than you are at former 😆
Is Wikipedia where you found that formulae you keep regurgitating to imply you are an engineering expert?
I am not a genius like you, I am an airline pilot (semi killed manual labourer) but I do know that steel bikes feel really great because they have bit of give in them. So when a frame designer that is infinitely more clever than me tells me the science behind it I tend to believe them.
I have a Starling Murmur , its nice really really nice .
HTH .
That point I missed earlier about road cars using rubber bushes to make them lesss noisy may be relevant in this case. Bikes generate very little rumble because they don’t have big resonant panels (apart from Orange 5 swingarms 😉 ) but they will vibrate. And you will feel that vibration through your hands and feet. Will a more flexible frame reduce that?
Fatigue really matters on long descents. That’s why we care about grips and handlebars.
hols2, I’m glad to hear you don’t work as an engineer because you’d be decidedly mediocre at it!
Incidentally, all my bikes bar my Brompton have alloy frames, the old 100mm XC hardtail with toddler seat and the modern 150mm hardtail and 160/140mm full-sus bikes.
I know that a lot of bike journalists write a lot of rubbish but not all of them do. And you will see a theme of them becoming aware of the effect of frame compliance (regardless of material) on bikes, to the point that the ones with more give (but enough stiffness to go where you point them) are highlighted as being better on rough gnarly trails whilst stiffer frames are great park or trail centre bikes but beat you up more on natural enduro style descents. All these journalists can’t be deluded, it isn’t a conspiracy!
And work the numbers out if you can be bothered - it’s pretty much all about downtube stiffness.
I'm starting to think poor hols is just after a bit of attention.
hols2, it is clearly a bit of copy for marketing, that bit about breathing with the trail, copy is copy, it's not claiming to be a bit of engineering is it? My issue with your output is mostly that you're contending that there is obective truth, only, and that poetry (as you put it), or even just description, doesn't express truth. Seems a bit bleak.
Perhaps have a look at some phenomenology - that messes all your claims of objectivity up in one fell swoop. Or read Prufrock, or even better, Four Quartets. That was pretty good at expressing truth when everything was upside after the last world war and no one knew what the point was - kind of like this thread.
Anyhow, my bike's better than your bike. And the OP should defo get one.
As someone that has the job of doing much of the engineering and writing the marketing copy for another business, if you want to sell a product to a wide range of customers then you can't describe it as you would to an engineer. And also, if you describe it in precise engineering terminology including giving all the numbers related to the performance, then you make it a damned sight easier for the competition to steal your ideas. It's a fine line to tread, being honest and convincing and appealing without giving all the proprietary but hard to protect info away: https://barefacedbass.com/ (thousands of words of me doing my best at that).
I like the "fatter warmer mellower and rounder with a nice edge and bite to the treble" bit. Mysteriously need a speaker that's taller than me...
what is a proper degree these days what are the talking bobbins useless ones where people go to university to study
The only things i have learned in four pages are.....
1: I still think steel full suspension bikes are the best based solely on my riding experience and the fact steel bikes are just plain prettier.
2: Some of you can't half waffle on.
3: I really want a go on that Slingshot Ripper
it’s pretty much all about downtube stiffness.
According to the bike designer, it's about the toptube, not the downtube.
You seem to have overlooked my point, which is that a frame cannot flex to the same order of magnitude as a 6" rear suspension. I'm not saying steel bikes don't feel nice to ride, just that a frame cannot flex enough to help a wheel track the ground the way multiple inches of suspension travel do.
So when a frame designer that is infinitely more clever than me tells me the science behind it I tend to believe them.
He's not telling you anything scientific, he's spouting marketing bollocks. The next frame designer will tell you the exact opposite and quote some other made up "science".
Love a bit of steel and really looking forward to a visit to the Stanton HQ to try out and order my new Switcher FS frame. Just got to decide on the colour
And you are missing the point hols. Its that few mm of lateral flex that makes a bike feel less harsh and track the ground better when leaned over because at high lean angles the suspension cannot work effectivly
“You seem to have overlooked my point, which is that a frame cannot flex to the same order of magnitude as a 6″ rear suspension. I’m not saying steel bikes don’t feel nice to ride, just that a frame cannot flex enough to help a wheel track the ground the way multiple inches of suspension travel do.”
I didn’t overlook it - I clearly stated that frame flex does not have to be of the same order of magnitude as suspension travel for it to have an impact on handling.
Let me put it another way - what if we make the frame far too flexible? According to your logic, as long as the frame flex is not at the same order of magnitude then it will have no impact on the feel of the bike. So on a DH bike with 200mm of travel the rider will not notice if the bike flexes sufficiently to cause 20mm of vertical movement at the wheels.
Does that sound logical?
I remember ages ago there was an excellent article regarding how frame feel was influenced by resonance and harmonics, but I can't for the life of me find it.
That said, this article might provide a few clues:
https://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0511/Burleigh-0511.html
TJ, this is just the first video that popped up so feel free to link to one that does illustrate your point, but I'm afraid I don't see where the bike is leaned over so much that the suspension is locking up and the rider is relying on frame flex instead.
Think there's something along those lines on Jan Heine's blog jivehoney, he talks about the bike 'planing'.
More roadie related.
I'm no scientist like some of the Profs on here, but I do know that karters will use different torsion bars on different tracks. Almost as if the flex had some bearing on handling...
So on a DH bike with 200mm of travel the rider will not notice if the bike flexes sufficiently to cause 20mm of vertical movement at the wheels.
We're talking about the frame twisting so the wheel can move laterally, not vertically. My point is that that much lateral flex would feel absolutely horrible. Or so I imagine, the only experience I have had that is remotely similar was when the chainstay on my old FSR cracked. It wasn't too hard to notice that the back wheel was off doing it's own thing.
karters will use different torsion bars on different tracks. Almost as if the flex had some bearing on handling
Karts don't have proper suspension, so they use chassis flex instead. In a regular race car, the aim is to have a very rigid spaceframe or monocoque to mount the suspension to, then use springs, dampers, and swaybars to adjust the suspension characteristics. Karters can't do this so they adjust how the chassis flexes instead. Completely irrelevant.
In any wheel size discussion on FS bikes it's everyone shouting about racing results, but not so in this thread. Is the enduro/DH racing scene awash with steel framed bikes at the upper levels?
It all gets a bit complex when steel is 3 times stiffer than alu though; I had a steel full suspension bike with a burly steel rear end...
Even though it had a puny by modern standards 135QR axle, it tracked like a downhill bike, with a noticeable improvement in holding a line on off camber sections compared to the alu enduro bike I had before it.
Nonetheless, despite this stiffness, it also had a pleasing level of compliance.
Wasn't the lightest mind...