Steel bikes for carbon lovers

[barefoot]

That's an informative answer thanks.
I had to take issue with Sogoods description of it as a noodle.
To have won Oregon state tt titles, it's clearly not.
It has thin profile tubes presumably to be aero, which it must achieve without being too flexy

What you say is only true if you equate stiff with fast.

Some claim that a stiff frame is faster than a whippy one.
Some claim that a whippy frame is faster than a stiff one.
Some claim that it makes no difference at all.

If the rider of this bike has the engine to win state titles, and this bike helps him get the aerodynamics to get the most out of his power (and the ergonomics to get the power out in the first place), then I see no reason why the lack of stiffness should stop him from winning state titles.

But that sure isn't going to be a stiff frame with such skinny tubes.

tim

[sumgy]

I will claim that most people could not tell stiff from whippy in that they would not be able to discern whether "flex" was from their frame, wheels, poorly inflated tyres, a loose headset, whatever.

And I always say that if you really want stiff why dont you ride a bike out of steel H-beam?
IMO the whole stiffer is better ideal that is being peddled is simply marketing hype.

[warthog1]

I've got an aluminium framed bike with plasticine seat stays and forks and 2 carbon framed cervelos.

I can see the difference on the mag trainer. The plasticine seat stays let the bottom bracket sway from side to side under the mighty warthog pistons (sticks more like it) during each pedal stroke.

The other bikes, one a roadie and one a tt don't move anywhere near as much. Probably it's less of an issue on the road where the frame is not clamped on the rear quick release. I had always thought the stiffness of the frame was one of the reasons the tt bike was so quick. Maybe it only really matters in a sprint. Of which I have none anyway

[warthog1]

IMO the whole stiffer is better ideal that is being peddled is simply marketing hype.

I agree too now
The difference between top level frames is probably not much anyway, and at non-pro level it no doubt means nothing.

[RonK]

Frame stiffness was a discussion point between cyclists long before modern marketing picked it up.

[Mulger bill]

I can see the difference on the mag trainer.

Call irrelevance. The rear wheel is held steady in ALL dimensions by the trainer, bikes aren't designed to work that way.

[Nobody]

The difference between top level frames is probably not much anyway, and at non-pro level it no doubt means nothing.

It has a meaning. It gives some a sense of superiority.

If you have a look at the article below, you'll see that frame size has more to do with frame stiffness than material used. That is why some people care about it, while others like me don't. I barely see any deflection on the trainer while riding my 46/53 cm frame steely.
http://sheldonbrown.com/rinard/rinard_frametest.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[warthog1]

Call irrelevance. The rear wheel is held steady in ALL dimensions by the trainer, bikes aren't designed to work that way.

It is true they aren't clamped like that on the road but it still gives an indication of the relative stiffness between the 3 bikes I have.
I am no physicist but when you ride, the frame does have force applied to it through the wheels, from their contact with the road, to the dropouts front and rear. Applying force to the crank will still try to twist the frame laterally, it's just more extreme when the rear is clamped.

In any case I remember Ride cycling review publish results of frame rigidity tests;

2. The bike is anchored at the fork and frame dropouts, via nutted axles.

http://www.ridemedia.com.au/?p=2508

Whether rigidity makes much difference on the road is another arguable point. FIIK really

[Ken Ho]

Shameless photo-op !
Fat skis rock, fat bikes roll !!