Best frame for around £1000
Comments
-
-
By doing some calculations based on the amount of compression you'd get in the seatstays for a given load (for reference, about 0.04mm for static loading with a typical cyclist for a pair of 17mm diameter 0.9mm wall ti tubes) compared with the amount of deflection you get in the tyres for the same loading. The complicated bit is working out what's going on with the tyres and the contact patch for different loading. For loading against a flat surface I get between 1.5% and 2% of the tyre deflection in seatstay compression (depending on how much the tyre is compressed as it's non-linear) - however that's not allowing for additional deflection in the saddle or for the additional stiffness from other parts of the frame than the seatstays, and I'm also being relatively conservative in terms of the assumptions I make about the shape of the contact patch (I'm fairly sure I'm calculating it a bit bigger than it actually is for a given deflection, which results in less tyre deflection for a given load). The main adjustment factor though is that the sort of loadings which you're worried about from a comfort perspective aren't normally with the tyre pressing against a flat surface, but when it encounters a relatively sharp edge - that should result in at least twice the deflection in the tyre compared to the flat surface model for a given loading, so I'm pretty confident about that 1% figure.fink wrote:"Because it's insignificant compared to the other factors (ie <1%"
Where are you getting that figure from?
I could set out the calculations here if anybody is really interested, but I don't want to ramble on too much, and as I mentioned the tyre deformation calcs get quite complex :roll:0 -
Also for the same tyre construction (ie comparing a 23mm PR3 with a 25mm PR3 rather than a 32mm Conti World Tour). Of course you don't want to run the fatter tyre at the same pressure as that removes most of the advantages, but you can run at a lower pressure for the same RR.redddraggon wrote:
I'd suggest any weight difference is also pretty negligible given (as you pointed out) we're only talking about going from 23 to 25 to make more difference to comfort than the difference between any two diamond frames of different materials - whilst it seems the ti advocates are more than happy to give up a bit of weight for some extra "comfort"!
Not really sure why I'm still using 23mm tyres - about the only possible explanation is that I'm just as irrational as the rest of you!0 -
aracer wrote:
By doing some calculations based on the amount of compression you'd get in the seatstays for a given load (for reference, about 0.04mm for static loading with a typical cyclist for a pair of 17mm diameter 0.9mm wall ti tubes) compared with the amount of deflection you get in the tyres for the same loading. The complicated bit is working out what's going on with the tyres and the contact patch for different loading. For loading against a flat surface I get between 1.5% and 2% of the tyre deflection in seatstay compression (depending on how much the tyre is compressed as it's non-linear) - however that's not allowing for additional deflection in the saddle or for the additional stiffness from other parts of the frame than the seatstays, and I'm also being relatively conservative in terms of the assumptions I make about the shape of the contact patch (I'm fairly sure I'm calculating it a bit bigger than it actually is for a given deflection, which results in less tyre deflection for a given load). The main adjustment factor though is that the sort of loadings which you're worried about from a comfort perspective aren't normally with the tyre pressing against a flat surface, but when it encounters a relatively sharp edge - that should result in at least twice the deflection in the tyre compared to the flat surface model for a given loading, so I'm pretty confident about that 1% figure.fink wrote:"Because it's insignificant compared to the other factors (ie <1%"
Where are you getting that figure from?
I could set out the calculations here if anybody is really interested, but I don't want to ramble on too much, and as I mentioned the tyre deformation calcs get quite complex :roll:
Thats all well and good but your considering only a small part of a much biger mechanical system. You have not considered any movement or deflection in the front of the frame, forks or any other component. (indeed this would involve some very complex calculations) Also this is referring to a single impact not multiple loading and doesn't consider vibration, resonance and the damping effects components will have.
When you consider the entire bike i cannot accept your origional statement that the frame material has no distinguishable effect on the comfort of the bike.0 -
I'm an mechanical/aeronautical engineer so am fully aware of the different properties of materials and frames... Of course the frame has a huge impact on comfort... but so does the tyres, tyre pressure, wheels, spoke tension, saddle, handlebars, stem and everything else. Depends how you define comfort as to which is more significant.
Everything flexes to a certain degree... I'm more inclined to say that wheels and tyres will have the greatest impact on outright performance, in terms of converting your energy into rotational energy, powering the bike forward, most efficiently. But then again the frame has the biggest impact on weight, which will of course effect your endurance etc to a certain degree.
Looking at it from a cost perspective. Going from a £5 tyres to a £25 tyre will have a significant impact on performance... for £20. I doubt you will get the same improvements by spending £200 extra (1000% more than the tyre increase) on a frame. Spending £200/300 extra on wheels may well enhance the performance significantly.
As I implied comfort is a qualitative thing, not quantitative, but the frame certainly has a large part to play in it.
Back to the original questions... any more suggestions for a CF frame under a grand?
Has anyone got an opinion on the Orbea Onix frameset - £850 and a lifetime warranty (is it made in spain?) seems a bargain to me?
I've also looked at the Colnago dream (admittedly not all CF, but a very nice frame) but thats a little over my budget.
Also, the Willier Izoard seems nice, but also a little too much.
Looked at the Willier Mortirolo, but can't help thinking the Onix is better value?
Would preferably prefer something Italian and/or more exclusive but very open to suggestion...0 -
Have a look at the BH L60 frame. I got one from the folks below and it is a really light and fast frame. I think from memory it was about £400 (about half price) as the guy had got about 20 from the importer to sell off. It was Cycling Plus bike of the year 2006, when built up.
http://www.holcroscycles.com/bikes/bh_bikes.shtml0 -
Front of the frame not considered as it is both more rigid than the back end of the bike to vertical loadings, and is further removed from the load path so has much less effect. Fork flex not considered as we're interested in the effect of the frame on comfort, not the fork - after all ti frames come with much the same forks as carbon and alu ones do. In fact fork flex, like flex in "any other component" contributes to flex which isn't due to the frame, hence decreases the relative effect of the frame on comfort (this is something I already mentioned, but since tyre flex dominates these, it doesn't harm my argument too much to neglect them).fink wrote:Thats all well and good but your considering only a small part of a much biger mechanical system. You have not considered any movement or deflection in the front of the frame, forks or any other component. (indeed this would involve some very complex calculations) Also this is referring to a single impact not multiple loading and doesn't consider vibration, resonance and the damping effects components will have.
When you consider the entire bike i cannot accept your origional statement that the frame material has no distinguishable effect on the comfort of the bike.
It refers to a single impact and doesn't consider vibration, resonance and damping effects, as in order for these to come into play the frame has to actually flex to a significant extent. You always get resonance and damping brought up eventually in these sort of arguments, with people seemingly missing the point that something which is extremely rigid can't provide any useful damping, and when you're getting <1mm deflections it's hardly like any resonance is an issue either (since that will be damped out by the far more flexibe parts surrounding it).
As I've said before, bicycles really do obey the same laws of physics as everything else.0 -
Are you? In which case why don't you apply that knowledge to how a frame actually works rather than relying on perceived wisdom?navier_stokes wrote:I'm an mechanical/aeronautical engineer so am fully aware of the different properties of materials and frames...
As I keep pointing it out, no it doesn't - or at least only due to differences in geometry, not differences in materials and construction. Anyway, why "of course"? That implies strongly to me that you're relying on perceived wisdom and "common sense" rather than any proper analysis of what's going on.Of course the frame has a huge impact on comfort...
Indeed, but some more than others. Do you think for example that the flex in your car body contibutes a significant amount to the comfort of that compared to the tyres and suspension?Everything flexes to a certain degree...
No it doesn't - why as an engineer who could do the calculations and see how little the frame contributes, and hopefully actually understands my arguments do you still think it does? As an engineer you can presumably provide me with an explanation of why my physics are wrong if you think they are?As I implied comfort is a qualitative thing, not quantitative, but the frame certainly has a large part to play in it.0 -
Holy crap, the guy only wants some input on which frame to buy, he isn't building a space shuttle!!0
-
aracer wrote:
Are you? In which case why don't you apply that knowledge to how a frame actually works rather than relying on perceived wisdom?navier_stokes wrote:I'm an mechanical/aeronautical engineer so am fully aware of the different properties of materials and frames...
As I keep pointing it out, no it doesn't - or at least only due to differences in geometry, not differences in materials and construction. Anyway, why "of course"? That implies strongly to me that you're relying on perceived wisdom and "common sense" rather than any proper analysis of what's going on.Of course the frame has a huge impact on comfort...
Indeed, but some more than others. Do you think for example that the flex in your car body contibutes a significant amount to the comfort of that compared to the tyres and suspension?Everything flexes to a certain degree...
No it doesn't - why as an engineer who could do the calculations and see how little the frame contributes, and hopefully actually understands my arguments do you still think it does? As an engineer you can presumably provide me with an explanation of why my physics are wrong if you think they are?As I implied comfort is a qualitative thing, not quantitative, but the frame certainly has a large part to play in it.
Ok, firstly define "comfort" for me... and whilst you're at it, why don't you write up your "calculations".
Why are you only considering flex in a vertical direction? Of course its not going to be much in the vertical direction because you've got a half metre column to support most of it! The load system is a lot more complex than you're making out which is why we use FE these days...
Secondly you're assuming a relationship between "comfort" (whatever that may be) and maximum deflection/stiffness - whats this got to do with anything? Aluminium has a Young's modulus of ~80GPa, Steel is ~200GPa. Steel is stiffer than aluminium. I think you'll find that aluminium frames generally ride worse and are less "comfortable" than steel... go figure. There is no direct relationship between stiffness of a material and the "comfort"/performance of a bike, you have to take into account the construction of it also.
Thirdly, if I were to define "comfort" I would include vibrations as a major factor, if not the greatest factor, you haven't. EVERY part between the source of the vibration (usually the road) and your arse/hands/feet will determine how much of these vibrations you will feel.
Fourthly, I haven't dismissed that tyres (and wheels) have a major impact on the performance of the bike, however you can't dismiss the frame.
Ride 4 identical bikes, but with an aluminium, steel, titanium and CF frame. If you can't tell the difference there's something wrong with you...
Lastly, this is all largely irrelevant, and you still haven't recommend me a frame :P0 -
If I was buying again, I'd be in the market for a good alu frame (£3-400), possibly CF (deda nero corsa for example).
With the remaining budget, I'd be looking at a set of training wheels (fulcrum 5's for example) and a set of mid-range deep section wheels like HED Jet 50's. I'd have 3 sets of tyres 20, 23 and 25mm to match to the task at hand.
I'd kit out some nice carbon forks and seatpost, alu bars with gel tape and the best groupset I could afford with the remaining budget.
Might well be cheaper to get a whole bike that fits the bill plus the deep section wheels and tyres separately.
I'm not convinced of the value of a titanium frame but have yet to compare like for like. It would have to be something very special to command the 2x cost.
I wouldn't get steel as it rusts and I'd have to keep my bike cleaner than I can be bothered with.0 -
I'm about to order one of these:
http://www.canyon.com/_en/roadbikes/index.html?b=158
They do a discount if you have a racing licence that will bring it in well under £1000
They are on the 'racy' side of things though, so i expect it to be very stiff and possibly a harsh ride?0 -
my impression ... from riding some of the best alu and carbon frames around (yes, I know there are variables I haven't controlled for!!) is that carbon frames have moved ahead of alu signficantly in terms of combining BB stifness, low weight and comfort (due perhaps to geometry and construction method rather than materials as aracer points out)
But alu gets a bad press ... the best alu frames are cheap, stiff and light and a good alternative if you only have £300 odd to spend.0 -
Fook me what a thread, and all cos the guy asks which frame he can buy for a grand.
Coo ...... :shock:0 -
giant mancp wrote:Fook me what a thread, and all cos the guy asks which frame he can buy for a grand.
Coo ...... :shock:
yeah i know, it's bizarre isn't it?
I guess though that if he goes somewhere like Evans, they'll have a library of spreadsheets comparing different variables - BB deflection etc. - for all the frames they sell so he should be alright.0 -
My Carbon bike is faster than my titanium bike, i did all the calculations and realised the reason, the carbon bike is faster becuase its black and that's faster than silver.
I know this adds nothing to the debate, but then nor do most of the posts in this section, go buy a nice Enigma frame. That's what i'm getting next.0 -
I was in Epic Cycles recently and picked up an Onix and was shocked at it's weight compared to the Orca next to it. I wouldn't go for it and I currently ride an Orbea.
The people pointing you at the Sigma sale probably have the right idea they have a 56cm Roubaix in stock and Fatbirds have Bottecchia 8avio for sale at £900 (don't know what it rides like but it's unusual and looks nice).
Personally I have bought a no name CF frame from Pedalforce in the form of the ZX3, as have some of the others on the forums. The new RS2 in red and black looks great and won't break the bank, but Ribble, DHC or Sumo all do Dedacciai in similar deals.Please look at my handmade cycling cufflinks0 -
justyn_c_uk wrote:I was in Epic Cycles recently and picked up an Onix and was shocked at it's weight compared to the Orca next to it. I wouldn't go for it and I currently ride an Orbea.
The people pointing you at the Sigma sale probably have the right idea they have a 56cm Roubaix in stock and Fatbirds have Bottecchia 8avio for sale at £900 (don't know what it rides like but it's unusual and looks nice).
Personally I have bought a no name CF frame from Pedalforce in the form of the ZX3, as have some of the others on the forums. The new RS2 in red and black looks great and won't break the bank, but Ribble, DHC or Sumo all do Dedacciai in similar deals.
Was the Onix and Orca the frame you picked up or complete bike? The onix is supposedly 1.24kg whilst the Orca 950g. For the money, the onix doesen't seem too heavy? Especially considering the Orca frame is £600/£800 more and a pro frame...0 -
Have you thought about a trip too Maestro. Mike Perry sells Ciocc, they make wonderful alu bikes. Have had a Challenger for six years and done thousands of miles on it. Its brilliant, very light and robust. Plus you have cache in owning something a bit different.0
-
I know it's probably a slightly unfair comparison as they were both complete bikes, the Onix was a Tour version with Ultegra while the Orca probably had Dura or Red. But the difference was lifting with a hand and lifting with a finger. Epic have an Onix Vuelta (Tiagra) for £999, so £850 for f&f seems steep.
I don't know how much Opals are (maybe too much), but last season some of the US pro teams rode them over their Orcas.
For me when I stood looking at the Onix it didn't inspire me to jump on and ride it out the door without paying (I don't advise that by the way). But that is obviously a very personal opinion.Please look at my handmade cycling cufflinks0 -
justyn_c_uk wrote:I know it's probably a slightly unfair comparison as they were both complete bikes, the Onix was a Tour version with Ultegra while the Orca probably had Dura or Red. But the difference was lifting with a hand and lifting with a finger. Epic have an Onix Vuelta (Tiagra) for £999, so £850 for f&f seems steep.
I don't know how much Opals are (maybe too much), but last season some of the US pro teams rode them over their Orcas.
For me when I stood looking at the Onix it didn't inspire me to jump on and ride it out the door without paying (I don't advise that by the way). But that is obviously a very personal opinion.
the onix doesn't do anything for me - I just don't like the look of it (I love the orca though..) 0 but i this is the case and you fancy an onix - then buy the complete bike and strip it down as the tiagra gear + wheels will easily fetch more than £150 on ebay!0 -
My thoughts exactly, if you wake up every morning wanting to ride all day on it and it inspires you, buy it. If you can sell all the extra parts off to get some cash back, great, or see if they'll do a deal for the frame?Please look at my handmade cycling cufflinks0
-
Well actually because somebody claimed titanium bikes are more comfortable than carbon ones (usually I just let it go, because threads like this are the end result, but felt it was about time that myth was challenged).giant mancp wrote:Fook me what a thread, and all cos the guy asks which frame he can buy for a grand.
Can't really add a lot to the initial question - it seems the OP is going carbon, which is certainly what I'd suggest. Personally I saved the pennies on the frame with a PF, which would still be my suggestion for anybody on a budget, and spent them on nicer bits to hang on it - otherwise it comes down to image more than anything else IMO.0 -
justyn_c_uk wrote:I know it's probably a slightly unfair comparison as they were both complete bikes, the Onix was a Tour version with Ultegra while the Orca probably had Dura or Red. But the difference was lifting with a hand and lifting with a finger. Epic have an Onix Vuelta (Tiagra) for £999, so £850 for f&f seems steep.
I don't know how much Opals are (maybe too much), but last season some of the US pro teams rode them over their Orcas.
For me when I stood looking at the Onix it didn't inspire me to jump on and ride it out the door without paying (I don't advise that by the way). But that is obviously a very personal opinion.
Did you see the willier Izoard whilst you were there? How was it in comparison to the onix?0 -
Lysander wrote:Have you thought about a trip too Maestro. Mike Perry sells Ciocc, they make wonderful alu bikes. Have had a Challenger for six years and done thousands of miles on it. Its brilliant, very light and robust. Plus you have cache in owning something a bit different.
I might drop him an e-mail, about the Colnago Dream HX also. What other brands does he carry? He doesen't seem to have Ciocc on his website?0 -
I did see the Wilier and it looks good in the flesh, I have to pick up the PF on Sat probably do you want me to do a taste test!!!Please look at my handmade cycling cufflinks0
-
It seems everybody is getting bored with this, but you did ask, and meanwhile people still seem to think the frame material makes a significant difference to comfort.
In bike terms, comfort is normally defined as the ability to absorb the forces from bumps and other irregularities in the road surface. I'm only considering vertical flex as that's the main direction the bump force goes in - if you find you get side forces from bumps which make you uncomfortable then that's a whole different issue :roll: . Exactly what is more complex about the system? Yes you could do FEA on the bike frame, but it's straightforward enough that traditional A-level physics decomposition of forces does the job just fine - the result of which is that the frame flex in a vertical direction due to rear wheel bump forces is dominated by the seatstay longitudinal compression.navier_stokes wrote:Ok, firstly define "comfort" for me... and whilst you're at it, why don't you write up your "calculations".
Why are you only considering flex in a vertical direction? Of course its not going to be much in the vertical direction because you've got a half metre column to support most of it! The load system is a lot more complex than you're making out which is why we use FE these days...
You seem to be missing the point that the Young's modulus isn't a useful measure on its own without also considering the amount of material used. Steel frames use thinner walls and smaller diameter tubes than alu ones do, hence have less cross sectional area to their tubes. When you combine this with the Young's Modulus you find that the longitudinal spring constant is much the same for both for typical tubing. Meanwhile since bending stiffness is proportional to the 4th power of diameter the bigger alu tubes are stiffer. However this only has a noticeable effect on lateral flex - I'm not assuming anything about how different materials affect comfort, that's you. My argument is that it's irrelevant as all frames are a couple of orders of magnitude stiffer than the other components between the road and your bum (hence I disagree that alu frames ride worse and are less comfortable than steel).Secondly you're assuming a relationship between "comfort" (whatever that may be) and maximum deflection/stiffness - whats this got to do with anything? Aluminium has a Young's modulus of ~80GPa, Steel is ~200GPa. Steel is stiffer than aluminium. I think you'll find that aluminium frames generally ride worse and are less "comfortable" than steel... go figure. There is no direct relationship between stiffness of a material and the "comfort"/performance of a bike, you have to take into account the construction of it also.
Every part that flexes to a significant extent. How can the frame which provides <0.5mm of flex between the road and your bum absorb vibrations a magnitude or more larger than that?Thirdly, if I were to define "comfort" I would include vibrations as a major factor, if not the greatest factor, you haven't. EVERY part between the source of the vibration (usually the road) and your ars*/hands/feet will determine how much of these vibrations you will feel.
I didn't suggest you had ignored tyres - simply that you can actually dismiss the effect of the frame on comfort.Fourthly, I haven't dismissed that tyres (and wheels) have a major impact on the performance of the bike, however you can't dismiss the frame.
I probably could tell the difference, but that's down to the lateral flex when pedalling rather than the vertical flex. The proper test for a difference in vertical compliance would be 4 bikes with identical geometry but different materials, all disguised so the user couldn't tell which was which from tube sizes etc. (since there is a significant psychological effect). All fitted with identical components and tyres pumped to the same pressure (or better yet the same wheels for each bike). Then set them off coasting down a hill over a variety of rough surfaces with no pedalling allowed so the rider couldn't tell the difference in lateral stiffness. Given such a regime I very much doubt anybody could tell the difference - without that regime the result is distorted by user expectations and/or lateral stiffness differences (which make no difference to comfort).Ride 4 identical bikes, but with an aluminium, steel, titanium and CF frame. If you can't tell the difference there's something wrong with you...
If you want some calcs, here's a brief synopsis:
For a 4mm vertical deflection in the tyre, the resulting contact patch is 18.6mm wide and 103mm long (using basic geometry) giving an area of 1502mm2 or 2.33in2 assuming an elliptical shape. With 100psi in the tyre this results in a force on the surface of 223lbs, or 1037N. Now put that force into two 17mm diameter 0.9mm wall thickness tubes (typical ti seatstay from what I can gather) each with a x-sectional area of 46mm2 and you get a stress of 11.4MPa in the tube. Given YM of 110GPa for ti and a 50cm long seatstay, that results in 0.052mm of compression. That's 1.3% of the deflection in the tyres, and as I said earlier the typical bump is a sharp edge rather than a flat surface so the deflection in the tyre will be more for a given loading, hence decreasing the frame contribution below 1%. Decreasing the tyre pressure by 1psi has almost the same effect on the vertical deflection as the frame flex does. If you can tell the difference 0.052mm of flex/vibration/damping (take your pick) makes then you've got a more sensitive bum than me!0 -
I too notice significant differences in comfort between alu and carbon with the same finishing kit and exactly the same wheels. (I wish it was the reverse as I'd like to sell the carbon frame to fund something else)
But assuming aracer is right (however distasteful for some other contributors), it suggests to me that geometry and frame construction has a significant influence on comfort, one consequence being that the "all carbon frames are more or less the same" argument falls.
Another thing that influences comfort noticeably in my experience is wheel type. The difference between big thick alu spoked wheels (e.g. Eurus) and thin steel spoked wheels (e.g. Neutron) is striking ... same bike, same tyres, same pressure etc.0
