News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Wooden bikes by cultus on Wednesday November 21, 2018 @10:03AM (#18503163)
The gullibility of cyclists is the industry's most valuable asset. In tests, cyclists cannot tell the difference between frame materials when the frame is covered.

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.

Re:Wooden bikes by Eric_WVGG on Wednesday November 21, 2018 @11:01AM (#18503602)
There's a blogger called “Bike Snob” who has been ridiculing cyclist gullibility and fleeting trends for over ten years. One manufacturer of wooden bicycles decided to just up and send him one, and… well I'll just quote him:

> 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.

Re:Wooden bikes by asauce on Wednesday November 21, 2018 @07:53PM (#18507244)
This guy's writing style is fantastic. I just read through all of the posts you linked, and I'm not even into bikes!

However I must say, the Renovo Aerowood is a good looking piece of wood.

Re:Wooden bikes by hammock on Wednesday November 21, 2018 @02:10PM (#18505157)
This guy is funny!
Re:Wooden bikes by mikestew on Wednesday November 21, 2018 @11:53AM (#18504003)
In tests, cyclists cannot tell the difference between frame materials when the frame is covered.

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.

Re:Wooden bikes by jshevek on Wednesday November 21, 2018 @04:59PM (#18506444)
I agree with you regarding the specific bikes I've personally experienced. But if I'm doing a blind "riding effort" test and am not allowed to lift the frame by hand, I doubt I could differentiate between all the contributing factors to effort.
Re:Wooden bikes by Overtonwindow on Wednesday November 21, 2018 @11:16AM (#18503713)
I think this is oversimplifying how changes in material and aerodynamics can improve performance. A person such as yourself might not be impressed by a “new bottom bracket” with 30% increased stiffness, but someone who races might. Every ounce and second counts.
Re:Wooden bikes by mikestew on Wednesday November 21, 2018 @11:59AM (#18504065)
Every ounce and second counts.

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.

Re:Wooden bikes by asdkhadsj on Wednesday November 21, 2018 @11:26AM (#18503787)
Moreover, the example of "In tests, cyclists cannot tell the difference between frame materials when the frame is covered." - who cares?

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.

Re:Wooden bikes by gameswithgo on Wednesday November 21, 2018 @11:31AM (#18503817)
>Since when does a humans ability to determine minute differences in materials actually matter?

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.

Re:Wooden bikes by grogenaut on Wednesday November 21, 2018 @11:25AM (#18503785)
The problem is like 0.2% of cyclists actually race but it's about 95% of marketing.
Re:Wooden bikes by Joeri on Wednesday November 21, 2018 @01:06PM (#18504687)
And arguably, if the goal is to get a workout, an easier ride just means you’ll have to cycle longer to reach your goal.
Re:Wooden bikes by TomVDB on Wednesday November 21, 2018 @01:28PM (#18504832)
Counterpoint: for me, buying an easier (in my case: much lighter) bike, was the difference between deciding to ride or to not ride at all.

I don't think I'm alone in that.

Re:Wooden bikes by CydeWeys on Wednesday November 21, 2018 @01:41PM (#18504915)
You're definitely not wrong. I can (and have) ridden my cyclocross bike for hours, which I have no desire of attempting on a Citibike, what I was using before I bought my own bike.
Re:Wooden bikes by grogenaut on Thursday November 22, 2018 @12:34PM (#18511280)
Sure but to you and go: you don't need to spend 10k to get a bike that meets those needs. Anything in the 1-2k range (eg laptop) prices is a very very nice bike.

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)

Re:Wooden bikes by CydeWeys on Thursday November 22, 2018 @01:13PM (#18511505)
Yeah, and I definitely didn't spend close to that much on it. It would still hurt me to have to replace it though, hence my preference for not locking it up outside. My point was more that, based on how I use it, it could've been a $10K bike.

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.

Re:Wooden bikes by _Wintermute on Wednesday November 21, 2018 @02:56PM (#18505516)
Or just cycle faster on a better/lighter bike.
Re:Wooden bikes by DenisM on Wednesday November 21, 2018 @08:21PM (#18507336)
Marketing is addressing the audience members not as what they are, but as what they aspire to be.
Re:Wooden bikes by cultus on Thursday November 22, 2018 @11:21AM (#18510852)
I am a former racer (cat 2). Every ounce does not count in amateur bike races, because such differences are dwarfed by differences in fitness. Significant figures. Aero drag matters a lot, and most of that is from the rider.

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.

Re:Wooden bikes by hasbot on Thursday November 22, 2018 @05:47PM (#18513058)
Do you have references to those tests? My personal experience says otherwise. I have steel, aluminum, titanium road bikes of about the same pedigree and setups. The different materials absolutely provide a different ride. But, if I'm thrown on some random, unfamiliar bike and ride it for a short period of time, I probably couldn't guess the frame material.

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.

Re:Wooden bikes by toomanybeersies on Wednesday November 21, 2018 @08:20PM (#18507330)
Back when I used to ride road bikes, I upgraded from a decade old (but very well maintained) aluminium Trek 1000 to a carbon fibre Merida Scultura.

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.

Re:Wooden bikes by cultus on Thursday November 22, 2018 @11:17AM (#18510826)
The vast majority of energy on a bike goes to aero drag, and most of that is the rider. Are you in a more aero position on the Merida? That would fully account for it.

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.

Re:Wooden bikes by spin on Wednesday November 21, 2018 @08:57PM (#18507435)
I'm curious what your new bike is. I currently have a 12 year old (but well maintained) Trek 1000. I'd like to get some better derailleurs (I'm constantly having to adjust and clean mine). But maybe I'll just get a better bike, I don't know.

EDIT: oh, you already said it: Merida Scultura

Re:Wooden bikes by toomanybeersies on Wednesday November 21, 2018 @11:00PM (#18507779)
I actually really liked my Trek 1000. I was very tempted at the time to just get a new groupset and wheels for the thing, but I had a really good deal on the Merida.

It's a very well built frame, it doesn't look the prettiest, but it gets the job done.

Re:Wooden bikes by hinkley on Wednesday November 21, 2018 @10:06PM (#18507635)
That seems like a lot just due to a frame change.

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...

Re:Wooden bikes by lvs on Wednesday November 21, 2018 @03:59PM (#18506048)
It's similar to any hobby that attracts both disposable income and pseudoscience. Audiophiles. Skiers. Surfers. Surgeons. (Kidding.)
Re:Wooden bikes by dabeeeenster on Wednesday November 21, 2018 @10:10AM (#18503211)
Although I generally agree, there are a couple of things that can have a big difference. Most obvious one being proper cycling shoes and cleat peddles. Big efficiency gains there.
Re:Wooden bikes by gameswithgo on Wednesday November 21, 2018 @10:37AM (#18503432)
People have done power and efficiency tests with cleats vs flats, usually with no difference or minimal difference

One such example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNedIJBZpgM

Re:Wooden bikes by cultus on Wednesday November 21, 2018 @10:15AM (#18503263)
Oh for sure. Indexed shifting, better alloys, for example.

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.

Re:Wooden bikes by gameswithgo on Wednesday November 21, 2018 @10:38AM (#18503443)
There are certain spoke counts which have non trivial aerodynamic advantage. But going less than, I think it around 12? has greatly diminishing returns. Zipp had some good data on this years ago.