Procycling: Old vs new

Lumen

August Procycling has an interesting article comparing a 1983 steel Pinarello to a 2009 carbon Lapierre X-Lite II.

The Pinarello was running original equipment in "as new" condition, apart from pedals and shoes.

They stuck some riders from a "top French DN1 team" on both bikes and used powermeters/HRMs/speedos (blind) to measure the TT performance over a 3km climb.

Objective results: "New" wins by 9.5W (317.6W vs 308.1W); Speed was 0.6kph higher (18.3 vs 17.7); HR was 1bpm higher (168 "new" vs 167 "old").

Subjective results: everyone hated the Pinarello, both up and downhill, and criticised it's lack of stiffness, handling and comfort.

The tester goes on to suggest that a 4kph increase in TdF speeds over the last 25 years is 60% down to equipment, 30% to training and 10% to doping. But since he's also the team coach he would say that.

Well worth a read.

ednwireland

i've got an italian frame from around the same time (columbus sl i think) , its comfortable (in a cut out downtube sort of way ) but stiff no way (dont ride it anymore)

Lumen

Sorry to drag up my own ancient thread, but I came across a PDF of this article which some might find interesting.

It brings something to the "does frame flex matter" question.

Chips Lovell

But steel is real?

ednwireland

el tonto wrote: »

But steel is real?

i'd still rather ride my CF focus

SubLuminal

For most of us though, would such tiny differences actually make any real difference? CF is expennnnsiveee..

ednwireland

SubLuminal wrote: »

For most of us though, would such tiny differences actually make any real difference? CF is expennnnsiveee..

compared to what my columbus sl (i think) frame should have cost ?

dont see many cheap steel frames these days

Lumen

SubLuminal wrote: »

For most of us though, would such tiny differences actually make any real difference? CF is expennnnsiveee..

Cycling is an activity which is often so hatefully painful that any small differences are amplified a hundredfold.

If your question is "is it necessary to buy a carbon fibre bike in order to enjoy cycling, or to go fast", then the answer is definitely "no".

Jawgap

el tonto wrote: »

But steel is real?

ednwireland wrote: »

i'd still rather ride my CF focus

Sounds like el tonto wants another "bike club" visit to Howth:)

Lumen

I don't think I know any fat people with steel bikes. Therefore steel bikes must make you thinner.

TinyExplosions

Lumen wrote: »

I don't think I know any fat people with steel bikes. Therefore steel bikes must make you thinner.

*ahem* the Mercian is all steel my friend...

rottenhat

It would be more instructive to see a comparison between a modern steel frame (Reynolds 953 Stainless or whatever their latest iteration is) and the Lapierre frame. I guess there wouldn't really be the option to compare a 1983 carbon fibre frame with the Pinarello.

Ryaner

SubLuminal wrote: »

For most of us though, would such tiny differences actually make any real difference? CF is expennnnsiveee..

My carbon bike is over 2 minutes quicker on an ascent of 3Rock than my alu bike. It is also faster at the same power output.

Lumen

Ryaner wrote: »

My carbon bike is over 2 minutes quicker on an ascent of 3Rock than my alu bike. It is also faster at the same power output.

Faster at the same power output? Howzat? You're using a hub power meter, right? So how does the frame material affect power transmission from hub to rim?

I guess if you're excluding aerodynamics it has to be weight. What's the diff?

Ryaner

Lumen wrote: »

Faster at the same power output? Howzat? You're using a hub power meter, right? So how does the frame material affect power transmission from hub to rim?

I guess if you're excluding aerodynamics it has to be weight. What's the diff?

I've a powertap on each bike and last I worked it out, it was on flat ground on the same route over a few different days. The difference up 3Rock could possibly be explained (in part) by weight as their is a 6kg difference between the two bikes.
There is also a small aerodynamic difference too, what with one being a Giant with full mudguards, pannier rack, 28C tyres compared to by Cervelo S2 with aero rims :P

Lumen

Ryaner wrote: »

The difference up 3Rock could possibly be explained (in part) by weight as their is a 6kg difference between the two bikes.

6kg ?!?

peterako

Ryaner wrote: »

.....The difference up 3Rock could possibly be explained (in part) by weight as their is a 6kg difference between the two bikes.
...

6kg and only 2 minutes difference :eek:

ryan_sherlock

peterako wrote: »

6kg and only 2 minutes difference :eek:

Over a 15 minute climb... Significant!

Think of going over an hour long climb, you could pop into a cafe at the top, grab a quick espresso, put your feet up and watch your buddy finish up the climb...

spyderski

I've a 1992/1993 Cannondale 2.8 with Ultegra 600 STI in perfect nick. Also have a couple of more modern carbon bikes (incl.Cervélo). Funnily enough, the old frame feels stiffer and more uncomfortable, but the shifting on the old Ultegra 600 STI groupset is possibly smoother/quieter than Dura-Ace 7900. Am gonna use the old C'dale as a winter bike this year. Are the big improvements in frames or components?

kumate_champ07

was it colombus or reynolds tubing?

the modern high end reynolds tubing is awesome but not many people have the skill to work with it

Lumen

spyderski wrote: »

I've a 1992/1993 Cannondale 2.8 with Ultegra 600 STI in perfect nick. Also have a couple of more modern carbon bikes (incl.Cervélo). Funnily enough, the old frame feels stiffer and more uncomfortable, but the shifting on the old Ultegra 600 STI groupset is possibly smoother/quieter than Dura-Ace 7900. Am gonna use the old C'dale as a winter bike this year. Are the big improvements in frames or components?

The 2.8 was a stiff aluminium racing frame, so it's to be expected that your carbon bikes ride better. Apparently the frame weighs under 1.3kg, which is pretty impressive.

My memories of 1993 Ultegra are the same - very smooth. Lovely looking chainset too.

Ryaner

Lumen wrote: »

6kg ?!?

Giant touches over 13kg on the scale on a good day. My Cervelo sits around 7.5kg in the form I race it.

peterako wrote: »

6kg and only 2 minutes difference :eek:

2 Minutes is a 10%+ difference when I did it.

Biggest difference between the two is the stiffness. Giant Alu bike flexes where as my Cervelo is beautifully stiff. However I have nothing against Alu itself and my next bike is actually going to be an Alu one.

Lumen

Ryaner wrote: »

Giant touches over 13kg on the scale on a good day. My Cervelo sits around 7.5kg in the form I race it.

2 Minutes is a 10%+ difference when I did it.

Just to be clear, are you saying that with your 13kg alu bike 3 Rock takes 18 minutes, whereas with your 7.5kg carbon bike it takes 20 minutes, at the same hub power but different wheels? What weight are you (if you don't mind me asking)? What was the power?

Ryaner

Lumen wrote: »

Just to be clear, are you saying that with your 13kg alu bike 3 Rock takes 18 minutes, whereas with your 7.5kg carbon bike it takes 20 minutes, at the same hub power but different wheels? What weight are you (if you don't mind me asking)? What was the power?

Figures for when I first compared it are below including my weights on the previous Saturday. Ascents were on the Tuesday mornings.

Date / Time / Distance / Avg Power / Bike /Weight
20100209 /20:38 / 4 / 303 / Giant / 185.4lbs
20100427 / 19:14 / 3.99 / 307.6 / Cervelo / 179lbs

Yes there are two months of a difference and my weight is a little different. The first two months with the cervelo, my power was consistently higher than the previous runs on my Giant.

Best example of weight I can give is
20100420 16:34 3.96 357.8 Cervelo - 179
20100610 15:41 3.99 354.4 Cervelo - 172.6

Lumen

Ryaner wrote: »

Date / Time / Distance / Avg Power / Bike /Weight
20100209 / 20:38 / 4 / 303 / Giant / 84.1kg + 13kg = 97.1kg
20100427 / 19:14 / 3.99 / 307.6 / Cervelo / 81.2kg + 7.5kg = 88.7kg

When I stick all that into the calculator, it predicts a time of 18.43 for the Cervelo, i.e. it predicts that the times will be further apart. I'm not sure what that means, except perhaps that calculators don't do very well with a course like 3 Rock which has a descent in it. Perhaps wind was different.

In any case, it's fairly obvious that an 8.4kg difference in rider+bike weight will have a significant difference on a hilclimb. However, the difference between 80s and contemporary race bikes is more like 2-2.5kg, and 20 seconds up 3 Rock (your real world difference scaled down for 2-2.5kg weight difference) is significant, but that's only about 1.5% time difference.

Ryaner wrote: »

The first two months with the cervelo, my power was consistently higher than the previous runs on my Giant.

I guess it doesn't really matter why that was, since more power is good, but the bikes are so different that blaming the difference on frame flex alone is a bit of a leap.

peterako

Ryaner wrote: »

....

Biggest difference between the two is the stiffness. Giant Alu bike flexes where as my Cervelo is beautifully stiff. However I have nothing against Alu itself and my next bike is actually going to be an Alu one.

I change frame last year from scientifiaclly proven stiff CAD3 (Cannondale) frame to a Principia.
Both Alu.

The new frame is considerably stiffer.

I noticed in the past when trying to power on a flat stretch that when I looked down at the bottom bracket/rear triangle there was visible movement left to right each pedal stroke.

NO movement left to right is visible with the Principia.

For me that seems to translate into more power going towards forwards motion

Now....would a Carbon frame be 'stiffer' and thus more efficient....

Lumen

peterako wrote: »

I noticed in the past when trying to power on a flat stretch that when I looked down at the bottom bracket/rear triangle there was visible movement left to right each pedal stroke.

NO movement left to right is visible with the Principia.

For me that seems to translate into more power going towards forwards motion

I'm not saying you're wrong, but what you've stated is not obviously true. A frame that bends twice as far for a given load isn't necessarily "losing" twice as much power.

A bicycle frame under load acts a bit like a big leaf spring (although it's obviously more complex than that). You apply force, it stores some energy as spring potential and transmits the rest to the wheels via the drivetrain. When the force is eased off, the spring energy is returned somehow.

In order for a frame to be more efficient, it needs to either store less energy, and/or return the stored energy in a more productive fashion (i.e. in a way that makes you go forward).

A stiffer frame may just store the same energy with a smaller deflection.

It is probably the case that a stiffer frame is more efficient overall, but I'd be interested to read a proper analysis, because I find hand-wavy assertions insufficiently convincing.

bcmf

my 2c worth....
Back in the days of steel I used to ride an Eddy Merckx Columbus slx frame with mavic wheels (dont remember the model) but when i used to (try) and climb I used to have to open my brake calipers as the wheels would rub the pads but when climbing with CF and Pro-Lite Como wheels there is no need to adjust brakes. stiffness with modern day wheels against old wheels.....?

Lumen

bcmf wrote: »

my 2c worth....
Back in the days of steel I used to ride an Eddy Merckx Columbus slx frame with mavic wheels (dont remember the model) but when i used to (try) and climb I used to have to open my brake calipers as the wheels would rub the pads but when climbing with CF and Pro-Lite Como wheels there is no need to adjust brakes. stiffness with modern day wheels against old wheels.....?

I think brake rub is caused by one or a combination of frame and wheel flex. Frame stiffness is clearly better with CF, although some very expensive contemporary wheels are not very stiff (weight weenie-ism). Two steps forward, one back.

I get brake rub on my Ti frame with my HEDs, but only when pulling off from standstill - I'm blaming the wheels. I don't recall getting brake rub with my traditionally built Mavic Open Pros on any bike.