Eiffel Bike

Discuss light weight issues concerning road bikes & parts.
Post Reply
CarpetFibre
Posts: 599
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2010 10:24 am

by CarpetFibre

Did someone already post this? Thought it was pretty cool...

Link

Geoff
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2003 2:25 am
Location: Canada

by Geoff

Nice find. A full isotruss bike. Pretty neat.

by Weenie


User avatar
jekyll man
Posts: 1330
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2007 10:23 am
Location: Pack filler

by jekyll man

Official cafe stop tester

dvincere
Posts: 204
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2012 6:40 pm

by dvincere

I wonder how it would hold up in the wind tunnel.

bazmac
Posts: 93
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2014 4:30 am

by bazmac

Geoff wrote:Nice find. A full isotruss bike. Pretty neat.


I can't believe that they did not deck it out with the M5 brakes as they would be a perfect match. Amazing amount of work but still a fair bit heavier than the top shelf frame sets.

Cheers baz


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

User avatar
Devon
Posts: 775
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 1:19 pm
Location: Oxford, England

by Devon

But why? It's not even vaguely light...
Campagnolo; because it's a bicycle, not a fishing rod.

justinn
Posts: 40
Joined: Sat May 04, 2013 5:34 am

by justinn

^ maybe stiffer?

User avatar
Devon
Posts: 775
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 1:19 pm
Location: Oxford, England

by Devon

True, but can you honestly tell me you, or more regular cyclists, would notice this very slight difference?

Obviously it's a concept, but in the real world it has very little practicality.
Campagnolo; because it's a bicycle, not a fishing rod.

neeb
Posts: 398
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 8:19 pm

by neeb

It would be interesting to have the stiffness figures - obviously it's moderately heavy for a carbon frame, but let's say it turned out to be 50% stiffer than a standard high-end modern frame. Then perhaps it would be possible to build something similar that was lighter and also as stiff as modern frames.

But I strongly suspect that this isn't the case - different construction methods are better suited to different purposes and different materials, and suspect that this is a very suboptimal construction method for making a carbon bike frame. Presumably it's also suboptimal for making a steel frame, otherwise we would have had micro-trussed bike frames for years instead of ones made out of thin butted tubing.

I'm not an engineer, but I suspect that the reason this doesn't work is that the trusses are on the wrong scale for the application - a bike frame already is a rigid structure made of two open triangles, but by breaking those down into hundreds of smaller triangles you are just adding redundant complexity, which is bound to introduce functional inefficiency.

Looks cool though.

by Weenie


justinn
Posts: 40
Joined: Sat May 04, 2013 5:34 am

by justinn

Devon wrote:True, but can you honestly tell me you, or more regular cyclists, would notice this very slight difference?

Obviously it's a concept, but in the real world it has very little practicality.


I have no argument there, but since when has the cycling community, especially one concerned with dropping grams off of the weight of bikes by any means necessary, been concerned about practicality?

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post