Carbon - I'm a believer

desweller

I have to admit I thought the first ECU was invented by BMW for use on a radial aero engine but I am happy to be proved wrong.

You're missing the point anyway.

In F1, the performance of the whole package is dominated by the car. If you don't have a strong car, you can't win. Simple as. Whereas you can have a driver who is not at the top of the tree and still win if you have a sufficiently dominant car. So every millisecond of performance that you can get by improving the car will get you closer to winning.

Cycling's not like that. The rider is far and away the most important element in the package. He/she is responsible for 80 to 90% of the weight of the package, he/she creates the majority of the drag and he/she develops all the power. So improving the bike, even if it's a large percentage of the bike, has a small impact on the performance of the package as a whole. Hence cycling and F1 are not analogous in the way you have described. For a pro tour rider, this minor improvement is measurable and worth seeking. Perhaps the OP is a Cat1/elite level rider looking to go pro, but if they are they're probably looking in the wrong place for advice on here.

Peddle Up!

DesWeller wrote:

Perhaps the OP is a Cat1/elite level rider looking to go pro, but if they are they're probably looking in the wrong place for advice on here.

In my dreams.

John.T

I had an all steel Olmo winter bike which was like riding spagetti and with steel forks still transmited a lot of road shock. Replaced that frame with a Ribble Winter/Audax with carbon fork. Much more responsive but not really any harsher to ride. I also have a 2000 model Trek 5200 which is a different animal all together. It is lighter, more comfortable and much stiffer and responsive. If you kick it goes. Now using a Trek Madone 5.2 2008 model. Even better than the 5200 in all aspects. It is not the use of carbon that makes these bikes better. It is the way they can be tuned to give the ride required. This is why the Madone is so much better than the 5200 which is a basic tube and lug frame. The Madone handles superbly, (bumps on bends do not bother it) and takes rough roads in its stride. Generally it can be ridden faster with confidence.
There was an article in Pro-cycling a year or so ago when some top French amature riders did a back to back test between a modern carbon bike (Look I think) and a Pinarello steel one from about 20 years ago. The frame was unused and built up with kit from the era. The carbon won hands down but I think the most telling thing was the comments about the Pinarello. They all said how did the pros descend on them as it was almost impossible to hold a line. They were so flexible at the front end.

rake

DesWeller wrote:

I have to admit I thought the first ECU was invented by BMW for use on a radial aero engine but I am happy to be proved wrong.

You're missing the point anyway.

In F1, the performance of the whole package is dominated by the car. If you don't have a strong car, you can't win. Simple as. Whereas you can have a driver who is not at the top of the tree and still win if you have a sufficiently dominant car. So every millisecond of performance that you can get by improving the car will get you closer to winning.

Cycling's not like that. The rider is far and away the most important element in the package. He/she is responsible for 80 to 90% of the weight of the package, he/she creates the majority of the drag and he/she develops all the power. So improving the bike, even if it's a large percentage of the bike, has a small impact on the performance of the package as a whole. Hence cycling and F1 are not analogous in the way you have described. For a pro tour rider, this minor improvement is measurable and worth seeking. Perhaps the OP is a Cat1/elite level rider looking to go pro, but if they are they're probably looking in the wrong place for advice on here.

electronic control units are probably just the general evolution of semiconductors and computers. it uses no principles that arent about in any nearly all other electronic devices. just someone decided one day to apply the technology to fuel injectors, just solenoids really(with only two states -on and off hence why digital can be used). it would have happened anyway with or without aviation or f1. i wouldnt call it an invention but a new application of existing technology, which is down to great inventors/scientists and silicone valley.im pretty sure microchip would have been about without bmw/f1 etc. evidence points to it being a british development in 1966.
ive now totally forgoten what this post is about, so appologies for ranting on.

nickwill

John.T wrote:

I had an all steel Olmo winter bike which was like riding spagetti and with steel forks still transmited a lot of road shock. Replaced that frame with a Ribble Winter/Audax with carbon fork. Much more responsive but not really any harsher to ride. I also have a 2000 model Trek 5200 which is a different animal all together. It is lighter, more comfortable and much stiffer and responsive. If you kick it goes. Now using a Trek Madone 5.2 2008 model. Even better than the 5200 in all aspects. It is not the use of carbon that makes these bikes better. It is the way they can be tuned to give the ride required. This is why the Madone is so much better than the 5200 which is a basic tube and lug frame. The Madone handles superbly, (bumps on bends do not bother it) and takes rough roads in its stride. Generally it can be ridden faster with confidence.
There was an article in Pro-cycling a year or so ago when some top French amature riders did a back to back test between a modern carbon bike (Look I think) and a Pinarello steel one from about 20 years ago. The frame was unused and built up with kit from the era. The carbon won hands down but I think the most telling thing was the comments about the Pinarello. They all said how did the pros descend on them as it was almost impossible to hold a line. They were so flexible at the front end.

That doesn't apply to a good modern steel frame though. Modern steel alloys can be built into comfortable but stiff frames.

Anonymous

Indeed, early carbon frames weren't much different!

Bar Shaker

rake wrote:

electronic control units are probably just the general evolution of semiconductors and computers. it uses no principles that arent about in any nearly all other electronic devices. just someone decided one day to apply the technology to fuel injectors, just solenoids really(with only two states -on and off hence why digital can be used). it would have happened anyway with or without aviation or f1. i wouldnt call it an invention but a new application of existing technology, which is down to great inventors/scientists and silicone valley.im pretty sure microchip would have been about without bmw/f1 etc. evidence points to it being a british development in 1966.
ive now totally forgoten what this post is about, so appologies for ranting on.

Rake, you are missing the point. What you have said is that if you gave monkeys paint brushes, they would come up with the Mona Lisa and a couple of Constables.

You may be right but it's like saying Graham Bell invented the telephone so the iPhone was inevitable. Or Baird invented the TV so the 60" Samsung 3D plasma was inevitable.

Carbon fibre has transformed like modern steel has transformed from pig iron with a bit of nickel in it.

What we are talking about is the refining of known technology into something quite good.

It is now an accomplished, versatile, strong and light material that surpasses the properties of what we used 10 years ago.

carl_p

MaxwellBygraves wrote:

NapoleonD wrote:

MaxwellBygraves wrote:

Thanks for your view Nap. It's frustrating because I really want to give it a go to satisfy my curiousity but it's bloody expensive.

In fact, my next best bike is going to be a custom steel frame from Rick at Feather Cycles...

Cool, I look forward to seeing the pics!

Max - share your pain. I almost pulled the trigger on a Van Nicholas frame at the beginning of the year as I thought that was the way ahead. I know beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but they are so dull to look at compared to some CF and Alu bikes.

It's great that NapD buy's all these bikes and reviews them for us!

I had my Alu CAAD9 out for the first time this year at the weekend and compared to my Alu Giant SCR it's an absolute dream.

kingrollo

Peddle Up! wrote:

After much deliberation I've upgraded from an alloy bike (with carbon front forks) to the full carbon job in the shape of a Trek Madone 5.2. Although I haven't put my old bike and the new one on the scales, I reckon that the weight difference is roughly the extra gut I've put on over winter (it was a good Christmas ).

But what I can't understand is now much faster the new bike feels, and is, especially when climbing. It can't be simply down to weight so what makes the difference (stiffness leading to better power transfer?)?

Anyway, I'm loving how the new bike feels and as the title shows I'm a happy convert to the world of carbon bikes.

Ignore all the killjoys - glad you're enjoying your new bike.

Could it be the geometry of the new bike suits you better ? - I went from a full on race bike - to a sportive carbon - I felt I lost little acceleration - but over a 25 mile course was a bit faster - and the hills felt a lot easier - I put it down to being more comfy on the bike.