[Finx]

Yet every single thing you've said is just your unsubstantiated opinion with zero facts to support it.

So I ask yet again. What do you consider negligible?

Do you dispute these results? Do you consider this negligible?

I have no skin in this game, and I'm not taking sides, but everything on that graph is "negligible" as far as the average cyclist is concerned.

Sure, if you're a super fast TT racer there might be a small difference over a long ride, but for the majority of us on this forum, riding along at 15-20mph, those numbers are "negligible".

 

[tlg]

What he's saying is "simply not true", but I'm "full of s***".

Maybe you need to learn to not take things so personally.

Did I miss his 200 posts of trolling B.S. ? I don't think so.

Nothing personal about it.

 

[tlg]

I have no skin in this game, and I'm not taking sides, but everything on that graph is "negligible" as far as the average cyclist is concerned.

Title of the thread and topic of discussion:
Why no titanium bikes in pro peloton?

 

[asgelle]

Sure, if you're a super fast TT racer there might be a small difference over a long ride, but for the majority of us on this forum, riding along at 15-20mph, those numbers are "negligible".

In other words, while the quantitative differences in equipment can be presented, and everyone is free to weigh them for their own needs, no one can generalize what's important to others.

And has already been pointed out, a differences of a second or two can turn into many minutes if it means making the split in a group or not.

 

[frdfandc]

"but I'm "full of s***".

Finally some truth that you believe instead of the "All the proof you have shown me is not proof at all". All you have been providing is anecdotal evidence, whereas others have posted statistical evidence.

Sounds like you are having a sissy fit because nobody agrees with you. Do you need a safe space to cry?

 

[tlg]

And has already been pointed out, a differences of a second or two can turn into many minutes if it means making the split in a group or not.

A 1 second advantage for a Pro in a 1km breakaway means he wins by about 12 meters. That's not negligible.

 

[Lombard]

Finally some truth that you believe instead of the "All the proof you have shown me is not proof at all". All you have been providing is anecdotal evidence, whereas others have posted statistical evidence.

Sounds like you are having a sissy fit because nobody agrees with you. Do you need a safe space to cry?

Maybe one of these will make Dr. Waspy feel better.

 

[pedalbiker]

Hence the carbon clinchers that are no better (typically worse) than aluminum rims

I've yet to find a 50+mm aluminum rim that didn't weight about 14 lbs. You?

 

[PBL450]

I posted early on that Ti has no performance gains to offer or it would be being raced. Face it. It just isn’t a particularly good material for bicycle frames. It’s fickle, very expensive, kind of heavy and less aerodynamic than competing materials. Ride whatever you like, but it gets silly when anyone tries to make performance claims that are simply untrue. It’s not in the pro peloton because it isn’t worthy, not because pros ride what they are told to by their team/sponsors. There is enough money to be made in elite cycling that teams would be adopting the technology if it translated to wins. Expense is not the reason any more that it’s a reason the airline industry chose to make jet wings out of carbon fiber. It’s great that Ti riders love it! Maybe it has some great properties? Performance is obviously not one of them. I know, some dude raced Ti back in like 1975 and won a race... frames are made from a host of materials including bamboo. But the original question is about elite racing. So the answer to the original question, again, is that it isn’t good enough.

 

[cxwrench]

Hence the carbon clinchers that are no better (typically worse) than aluminum rims and idiotic disc brakes (driven largely by the carbon clinchers they pushed).

I missed this...what are you going on about here? 'No better'? In what way? Lighter, more aerodynamic, and stiffer aren't enough? Braking is just about the same w/ rim brake wheels, obviously disc brakes are better on either rim. Nothing idiotic about them at all unless you're a luddite.

 

[thalo]

Maybe one of these will make Dr. Waspy feel better.

I don't thik Phil Gaimon would rate this cookie very high, so it might not have the calming effect you desire.

 

[Peter_T]

Interesting! I think that steel and Ti have a springiness that partly makes up for some of what they lack in rigidity compared to aluminum and carbon. But my impression (not from personal experience) is that when it comes to sprinting at the top level, rigidity is everything and so a better question is why not more aluminum bikes in the pro peloton? Carbon gives you that rigidity without the torture factor of aluminum on long rides.

 

[Peter_T]

I think that it's especially B. A would not deter pro teams from going with Ti if there was any advantage.

 

[Mike Overly]

I realize this sounds like a topic that has been beaten to death, but being the new owner of a titanium bike (Litespeed T1SL), I cant help but wonder why carbon fiber is now king.

It seems you can easily build a Ti bike that is below the UCI weight limit, and that has excellent ride characteristics. The only thing you cannot do with them is build them to be “aero”, which I think most of us agree is a bunch of BS anyway. (At a mere 30-40mph with a large, clunky object - eg the rider - atop the bike, wind resistance from the bike is comparatively negligible).

Has anyone published any study documenting the superiority of carbon fiber over Al or Ti in the various criteria by which one would evaluate a pro-level bike (eg stiffness, rider positioning, and comfort)?

It sounds like you’re heavily into the confirmation stage of your purchase. Enjoy the bike.

 

[SwiftSolo]

Yes and no. Yes in the sense that aero bicycle design has reached a level of maturity where design of a bare frame and a fully built bicycle have been pretty well optimized so the next frontier is to improve designs based on bike rider interactions. But it's still possible to see gross differences in performance between bikes even without a rider. It's true there are examples where the relative performance of super aero frames changes from bare bike to bike+rider, but the differences are small both before and after the rider is on board. If even moderate differences are seen between bare bikes, it's unlikely the relative performance will change when they are compared with riders present.

I suspect that most development testing progresses from bare frame to fully built bike to bike+rider because that would go from the cleanest data that could be taken quickly, to noisier but more accurate data that takes more wind tunnel time. One caveat is the extent that this might be short circuited by CFD modeling. Sophisticated CFD could replace most or all of the first two steps.

Based on what has been learned about mast sections for sailboats, I would think it quite possible to find a bike that performs relatively well in the wind tunnel without a rider and relatively poorly with a rider.

The bike designed to be fastest with a rider would integrate aerodynamically with the rider--a feature that would likely be counterproductive on a riderless bike. Rules prohibit the obvious example (a fairing). However, finding anything that moves the needle in that direction (and is not prohibited by rules) is where the smart money is being spent.

Wind tunnel testing without riders is mostly marketing propaganda--not quality science.

 

[Alaska Mike]

It sounds like you’re heavily into the confirmation stage of your purchase. Enjoy the bike.

...and that pretty much sums it up.

I absolutely love my ti bikes. 95% of the time, I grab my Moots Compact when it's time for a ride. I have several faster/stiffer/lighter bikes, but it's the one that just plain works and performs well in all sorts of situations. Perhaps that percentage will decrease when I build my RSL, or find some other magical bike. As long as I'm enjoying the ride, it really doesn't matter what I'm riding. I try to avoid absolutes when talking about my bikes, because I just haven't experienced all that's out there. I have my preferences when it comes to bikes, and try to seek them out when contemplating new ones, but each new bike teaches me something new- sometimes good, sometimes bad.

After all, they're just expensive kid's toys.

 

[asgelle]

Based on what has been learned about mast sections for sailboats, I would think it quite possible to find a bike that performs relatively well in the wind tunnel without a rider and relatively poorly with a rider.

You might think so, but sadly the data show otherwise. The Slowtwitch.com forum and Aeroweenie.com - Time Trial and Triathlon Aerodynamics Links and Data are good sources for data and (some) informed discussion. As for masts and sails, it seems a better analogy than bikes+riders would be tires and rims. In that case, there are strong interactions. However, knowing little about sailboat aerodynamics, I would be reluctant to extrapolate from bikes to boats.

Wind tunnel testing without riders is mostly marketing propaganda--not quality science.

That's your opinion. Again, data show otherwise.

 

[tfinator]

Dang. Wasp threads are first rate.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[kiwisimon]

Dang. Wasp threads are first rate.

yep, bloke buys a bike, needs to talk about that bike. Only really wants to hear affirmation.

 

[frdfandc]

This thread needs this.