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.
> Before getting the bike: Intrigued by the novelty factor and an excuse to make gratuitous wood puns
> Shortly after receiving the bike: Impressed by the exquisite craftsmanship but also kind of embarrassed by it at the same time
> Shortly after riding the bike for the first time: Wow, it feels great, but what's that creaking? I bet it's broken
> Once I'd solved the creaking by tightening the bottom bracket: I really like riding this bike
> Today: All bikes should be made of wood, metal and crabon is for vulgarians
His whole shtick is being a bit jokey, but anyway he's been writing about this thing for a year now and basically loves it.
I'd also like to point out that people buy bicycles for factors other than speed. Most people, I would wager.
https://bikesnobnyc.blogspot.com/2017/11/bsnyc-field-trip-20...
https://bikesnobnyc.blogspot.com/2017/11/would-that-i-could....
https://bikesnobnyc.blogspot.com/2017/11/this-title-is-100-f...
https://bikesnobnyc.blogspot.com/2018/06/wood-bike-status-up...
https://bikesnobnyc.blogspot.com/2018/01/sawdust-in-wind.htm...
read for yourself
However I must say, the Renovo Aerowood is a good looking piece of wood.
Man, I have a hard time believing that. Now, I've not done a blind taste test, but I truly believe I'll tell the difference between a good carbon frame and an aluminum frame of equal quality. All of the frames in my garage have noticeably different characteristics, and it can't all be placebo. But, I'm an ex-racer, blah, blah, so maybe most people can't tell the difference.
new bottom bracket that's claimed to be 30% stiffer.
OTOH, if a Cat 3 thinks he's putting out enough power to torque a modern bottom bracket, yeah, he's deluding himself.
Ex-racer here, and I'll back that statement up. Trick is, which expensive doohickey actually saves a second or an ounce? Or more realistically, since seconds and ounces can actually be measured by a layman, is the bottom bracket actually stiffer? Are you two seconds faster today because of the bottom bracket, or because you're just faster? Was it the smoother shifting of the new chain rings that saved those seconds? Maybe you need a $1000 power meter so you can get the telemetry needed to make sure.
IOW, many thousands have been spent by myself and others to gain only perceived, but not measurable, differences. And, oh how the component marketers know that.
I probably wouldn't notice the difference between some quality swimming gear vs elite (gold medal quality?) swimming gear either. Running shoes, etc.
Since when does a humans ability to determine minute differences in materials actually matter? Why would we care would opinion the biker has of the material? If it's objectively better, and better is defined by measurable, quantifiable metrics - then what do we care? We're not talking about a wine-snob scenario. Where it's purely subjective opinion based. We're talking about performance characteristics that, when used in competitive scenarios, actually matter.
Now does it objectively matter to some "bike snob" just riding to work? Eh, maybe not. Sure he may make it to work 1m faster due to an objectively better frame, but who cares. Yet, the fact that the bikers use case is subjective does not invalidate more objective use cases for better frames/etc.
when the difference we are talking about is "ride quality" then humans noticing is the only thing that matters. If we were talking about speed, then it wouldn't.
I don't think I'm alone in that.
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)
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.
Races sometimes are very close, but they are that close only because the pack or a breakaway finish together. When the sprint happens, there are only a few seconds for riders to pull away from each other. In these cases, minor differences in efficiency still don't matter because it is over such a short time frame.
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.
I had the same tyres, pedals, and shoes on my new bike (switched them over). I had a 3-4 km/h improvement on average on the flats instantly. So my new carbon bike was objectively better than my old aluminium bike.
I'm not sure if the improvement was because the bike was brand new, or because it was carbon and had higher end components, but it was definitely there.
The difference in weight is not capable of causing much difference on flats, since it would just slightly increase rolling resistance. The differences in mechanical efficiency of well-tuned road bikes is also pretty negligible.
EDIT: oh, you already said it: Merida Scultura
It's a very well built frame, it doesn't look the prettiest, but it gets the job done.
If I had to guess, more gear ratios, newer bearings, and rim profile probably all contributed to that. And maybe just a little bit of placebo...
One such example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNedIJBZpgM
There have been some major innovations, but most of what has come out in the last 10 years in road bikes hasn't been great. Lots of new BB standards that all creak, thinner chains, too few spokes, etc.
Then if you disguise the wheels such that they cannot tell which is which, they are completely unable to discern them.
The same is true with frame types typically believed to be vastly different. A professional triathlete and ex cat 1 road racer I know was sure he could tell the difference between Cervelo's comfort, round tube frame (The R series) and their aerodynamic frame (the S series).
He devised a helmet with an obscuring screen so he could test the two in blind fashion, and he was unable to discern which was which, by riding them.
Its all just nonsense, really, imho. There are dozens of examples like these I've seen through the years. People with high degrees of expertise, certain of these feeling differences, blind them, and they can't tell.
As an aside, the placebo effect is real, and I attribute a lot of strong product opinions re: fitness equipment (doesn't matter if bikes or running shoes) to how they make people feel, not how they objectively perform.
Anecdotally, I can barely tell the difference between the two and the deck is stacked in favor of the carbon bike. Swap the wheels and I'm sure they would feel exactly the same aside from geometry.
Recommended pressure always varies. With wider tires, you typically must run them lower, since a too-high pressure will cause the tire to blow off the rim.
If the tire is a stiffer material, this dissipates more energy. In addition, suppler tires deform over obstacles more readily, reducing bouncing and vibration.
More or less, your contact patch is pressure/weight, since the tire can't support much weight on its own. It's going to be almost the same no matter what (slick) tire you are running. Wider tires have less rolling resistance for the same pressure (to a point), since the tire deflects less to maintain the same contact patch. Two tires of the same width, one stiff and one supple, will have to bend in the same way, and have nearly identical contact patches. However, the supple one will dissipate less heat doing this.
This is not correct. Optimum speed comes are optimum pressure, which is usually quite a bit lower than most cyclists imagine. Going too high results in worse rolling resistance, AND worse handling AND worse comfort.
As a ballpack figure for a road bike, a 25c tire will usually have optimum rolling resistance at around 90-100psi for typical male rider mass and road surfaces.
And the faster, better handling tires also have less rolling resistance, but less durability.
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 benefits of achieving low rolling resistance are offset by the losses due to increased vibration.
Of course, this school of thought is largely the product of one man, Jan Heine of Compass Bicycles, but it's interesting to read and consider. Personally, I made the jump from 23mm road tires at 120psi to 48mm slick tires at ~40psi this year, and I have to say, my average speed didn't take a hit at all on the road and am much happier and more comfortable.
https://janheine.wordpress.com/2018/05/02/testing-tires-isnt...
https://janheine.wordpress.com/2016/03/09/tire-pressure-take...
However,even though they feel faster, they’re actually slower. That extra vibration is coming from vertical deflection that a more supple (lower presure) tyre would allow to stay as forward momentum.
Personally I keep “25mm” (GP4Ks always seem to measure closer to 27mm for me) somewhere between 70-80 psi but then I’m the sort of madman that thinks I can feel the difference with latex inner tubes.
Steel is the best frame material for 95% of people due to its durability. Quality steel frames (not Schwinn travellers) are quite light. Cro-moly frames like Salsa are a good choice and weigh around 2-3 kg vs 1-2 kg for a carbon frame. There's plenty of framebuilders who can build custom frames out of other alloys as well. There's been steel frames built down to a kilo.
If you have a problem with harshness, wrap the bars with another layer of bar tape. Another option is to use wider lower PSI tires, preferably with wider 23mm rims. Not only is it softer, but the rolling resistance is actually less than standard road rims and tires.
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 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.
You can even put stuff like flax seed in the resin to absorb vibration, just like this wooden frame claims to do.
Carbon is a better material for bikes than steel is.
It just lacks the romance because it’s harder for a lone bloke in his shed to weld.
(I still want one of these wooden bikes because n+1 and can you imagine rocking up to a club ride on one. :D )
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.
I have a bike made with True Temper OX Platinum steel and it is my favorite bike by far. It is a very light frame, but that is not what I like about it. Steel (and titanium) frames can be made with tubing of a much smaller diameter than that of aluminum or carbon. I believe that the tube diameter (and associated stiffness) is what people are feeling when they talk about the difference between bikes.
If you make a steel bike with tubing that is indistinguishable from aluminum or carbon, I am not surprised that nobody can tell the difference!
>custom
Sure, but that's pretty pricey compared to off-the-rack carbon or aluminum.
What was the actual conclusion of the study you remember? That there's no difference? Because that seems like a questionable thing to conclude, and it makes me wonder how they controlled for other factors like frame and bike weight, differences in geometry, etc.
Most serious riders are also cultivating a relationship with a local shop, and that drives some choices, too. For example, when I bought my bike, I did slightly prefer the one I bought (a Specialized Roubaix) over the endurance-geometry offerings from Trek, Cannondale, Giant, etc. However, the other part of the decision was that I liked the shop in question MUCH MUCH more than any of the other shops, in terms of location, vibe, friendliness, overall impressions, mechanic repuation, etc. I would've bought from this shop even if the bike they were selling wasn't my first choice, as long as the margin was small (and they were).
Steel makers don't have that dealer network.
"If the doors of perception were cleansed every thing would appear to man as it is: Infinite. For man has closed himself up, till he sees all things thro' narrow chinks of his cavern."
More to the point, however, I think that human minds often handle perception in general, but the problem of objectively observing the subjective is somewhat less tractable.