Orange sneak peak?

sheepsteeth

well, if i wanted a 105 equipped carbon bike id be more tempted to look at these

focus for 1100 quid

ribble for about 1118 when upgraded to a 105 groupo

both would be less moneys when built as is and would still be chaeaper with some upgraded wheels.

you would have to be an utter fan boi to want one of those orange bikes*



*by that i mean all orange bikes of course

ddraver

I declare myself uninterested - thankyou from stopping me making a big (hypothetical) mistake!

Anonymous

benpinnick wrote:

Engineering Question: Technically, aren't all bikes monocoque?

No.
Think more "spaceframe"

nicklouse

yeehaamcgee wrote:

benpinnick wrote:

Engineering Question: Technically, aren't all bikes monocoque?

No.
Think more "spaceframe"

Disagree.

Anonymous

You reckon they are monocoque, Nick?

Clank

Technically speaking, I'm with Yeehaa on this, but I can see why Nicklouse would disagree.

Most bikes aren't a unitary conctruction, but a triangulation of discrete tubular elements. Makes 'em a spaceframe by my reakoning.

I'd also argue that carbon bikes based on the conventional diamond pattern are like wise spaceframes, albeit single piece (their loadpaths are identical to a spaceframe)

Whilst there are proper 'monocoque' bikes out there, they're few and far between (and for road racing, largely banned by the UCI).

Anonymous

Doesn't the UCI ban all innovation in road cycling though?

cooldad

This is more correctly a spaceframe bike



Small structural members using geometric patterns, normally triangulated

cooldad

Better use Maserati Birdcage

Anonymous

cooldad wrote:

Small structural members using geometric patterns, normally triangulated

Doesn't that precisely describe a bicycle though?

cooldad

I kind of thought about that while I was typing. But bikes get a lot of their strength (torsional strength) from heavy non triangulated pipes. A spaceframe would have an outrigger with small triangulated members for torsional strength. Not sure about the terminology.

Suggest moving this to crudcatcher so we can just post random sh1t and stop trying to sound intelligent.

Anonymous

I'm not convinced. It's the inherent double-diamond design that gives a bicycle it's strength, without some extremely thick tubing, and a lot more metal. I think.

cooldad

Let's call it a rudimentary spaceframe as I can't think of a good argument, much as I would like to.

Brocklanders023

Orange have knocked out road bikes in the past so I'd guess it's more then just a re-badged blah. Could be wrong though.

Saw this on the Stif FB page. For those interested there's also pictures of an Orange FS 29er.

DickBarton

"Priced at £1,900, Flynn says, "We know we're probably pitched £100-£150 more than other bikes with good carbon frames and Shimano 105 components but our customers being mountain bikers are used to looking at the hidden details like bottom brackets and hubs." "

That was from the Road.cc webpage - is this a sort of backhanded acknowledgement that the bikes are overpriced??? And that MTBers are daft enough to accept paying over the odds?

I thik it looks nice...would like a shot but as I don't road bike I wouldn't notice any of the nuances of the bike...if it is easy to ride and makes me go fast then it is good...but then it isn't marketed at me...looks nice and I'm sure it'll be sold out in no time!

benpinnick

Clank wrote:

Technically speaking, I'm with Yeehaa on this, but I can see why Nicklouse would disagree.

Most bikes aren't a unitary conctruction, but a triangulation of discrete tubular elements. Makes 'em a spaceframe by my reakoning.

I'd also argue that carbon bikes based on the conventional diamond pattern are like wise spaceframes, albeit single piece (their loadpaths are identical to a spaceframe)

Whilst there are proper 'monocoque' bikes out there, they're few and far between (and for road racing, largely banned by the UCI).

The spaceframe arguement doesn't stack up for me as a spaceframe construction is a structural framework which is then covered with something (see maserati pics for example) While you could leave a space frame bare, this is an aesthetic choice, rather than engineering principle. A monocoque on the other hand is a structure whose covering, or skin is the structure. Since bikes only have a skin, and no internal structures, I would argue they are all monocoque. I don't think a monocoque construction has to be made in one piece, thats a bit of a mis-leading concept.

Anonymous

benpinnick, you're talking rubbish. A spaceframe does not have to be covered in a skin, at all.

Clank

benpinnick wrote:

Clank wrote:

Technically speaking, I'm with Yeehaa on this, but I can see why Nicklouse would disagree.

Most bikes aren't a unitary conctruction, but a triangulation of discrete tubular elements. Makes 'em a spaceframe by my reakoning.

I'd also argue that carbon bikes based on the conventional diamond pattern are like wise spaceframes, albeit single piece (their loadpaths are identical to a spaceframe)

Whilst there are proper 'monocoque' bikes out there, they're few and far between (and for road racing, largely banned by the UCI).

The spaceframe arguement doesn't stack up for me as a spaceframe construction is a structural framework which is then covered with something (see maserati pics for example) While you could leave a space frame bare, this is an aesthetic choice, rather than engineering principle. A monocoque on the other hand is a structure whose covering, or skin is the structure. Since bikes only have a skin, and no internal structures, I would argue they are all monocoque. I don't think a monocoque construction has to be made in one piece, thats a bit of a mis-leading concept.

Riiiiiiiiight. :?

I think you've missed the fundamentals, but you've some interesting reasoning. It's wrong, but it's well considered.

cooldad

Who needs skin

benpinnick

yeehaamcgee wrote:

benpinnick, you're talking rubbish. A spaceframe does not have to be covered in a skin, at all.

And yet a car, constructed in a manner where certain parts, such as the door struts, roof etc are structural and the skin is considered monocoque. Whats the big difference between that and a bike? I agree that a spaceframe is not necessarily covered as I said in my last post.

Fair enough older style HT bikes might be framed structures, but who rides one of those any more?

Clank

I'm calling 'troll'.

Anonymous

Clank wrote:

I'm calling 'troll'.

Yep. Either troll, or idiot. Or both. The perfect storm.

benpinnick

Only one of us rides a Marin. I think that says a lot about your judgement in bike related matters