Thanks to all, really appreciate your support
I'll for sure let you know when I have some updates, these days I have to wait a bit, unfortunately the progress doesn't depend only from me, but it's in process. So I have some more free time and I'm also quite a lot on my bike these days, really enjoying the rides in our mountains
In the past few days I also had some "productive nights"
and came across some ideas that I really have to try (for tube-to-tube framebuilding).. but I'm in some "doubts" regarding the frame design. I'm one of those guys who like the modern/classic look, I'm not a fan of "super-curved" tubes etc.,...but one question, should I start working also on aerodynamics?
In the past few months I study a lot about aerodynamics, but personally I don't see that big advantage. Why?
Above there is a comparison (from Cervelo), and like I already wrote in another topic (viewtopic.php?f=3&t=113669&start=45
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) if you have a frame with a completely round tube, and if the tube is lets say at 40° (downtube), then the shape/profile is elliptic. I know that aerodynamic isn't simple. But if you consider that all other profiles are at 40°...because from this chart you can conclude that any bike with a round downtube is more aero than the "aero frame" (with the "Squoval 3" profile, Like Scott Foil etc.,..).
But I don't like a completely aero shaped tube because other properties (I don't mean aerodynamic, that is in this case of course the best, in theory).
I'll make my own metal moulds for the frame tubing and just can't decide how to make it. But I already know that I'll improve a bit the shape of the tube where it meets with the joints (so the tubes won't be completely round, but a bit wider near the BB etc.,..), but don't know if I should make it in general pretty round/elliptic, or should it be "semi-aero" or "aero",... Personally, at this moment I would go with the round/elliptic design and keep it with a pretty simple look, but I'm not really sure
. The investment will be quite big (for a student like I am) and I want to make it perfect..won't rush, my aim is to make it till the end of this year..and then slowly continue with my work.
Anyway, in short, what would you guys prefer? Perosnally I'm heading to the "classic" design that would be also the lightest. But there is also some aero advantage on aero frames, but as a student of mechanical engineering I don't really see that many benefits in terms of aerodynamics (mention that the complete frame has also two bottle cages, and that the wind isn't blowing only at -/+ 30° etc.,..). I don't like some statements "how much more aero some things are", but without any real conditions (real rider that is moving, and not just a doll,....and with bottle cages/bottles etc.,..). Of course aero shape has some advantage, but is it worth, because you loose then some other good properties (one of them is also weight,..). I'll be very happy to hear your opinions and start with a discussion.. In general I already have most of the drawings that I need to start with my new frame design (the moulds are in general already designed), but before I give it a green light I would really like to hear some more opinions
Hey Berk! Just wanted to point out. All of these tube shapes are from the same perspective. So if the round tube used as a downtube becomes an ellipse (which it definitely does), the other shapes have longer relative chords as well. The differences between the shapes is relatively consistent with this. So the Foil shape/Squoval 3 is still that little bit more aero than the round tube