Weight Weenies
* FAQ    * Search    * Trending Topics
* Login   * Register
HOME Listings Blog NEW Galleries NEW FAQ Contact About Impressum
It is currently Sat Nov 18, 2017 11:01 pm

All times are UTC+01:00





Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 218 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2 3 4 515 Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2017 1:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:08 am
Posts: 833
Not something I would ever even consider.


Top
   
Posted: Thu Jun 22, 2017 1:19 am 


Top
   
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2017 6:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 6:32 pm
Posts: 13
To me looks like something in between the old S5 and the Rose Xeon CW. The headtube looks very tall, just like the old S5. Is there only room for one bottle cage? Hard to tell from the pictures. In need of aestetic refinemet to appeal I think.


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2017 7:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 7:27 pm
Posts: 143
youngs_modulus wrote:
romalor wrote:
And tubular don't benefit as much as clincher when on a super wide rim, they don't get rounder and a little bit larger


Clinchers don't get "rounder" no matter what rim width you use. This is a common misperception; maybe it comes from people thinking of their car and (some) motorcycle tires, which are designed with casings stiff enough to force a non-round cross section. But those tires' construction is radically different from that of bicycle tires. For one, they're almost all radials, while all modern bike tires use bias-ply construction (even Maxxis' Radiale).

All bicycle tire casings (clinchers and tubulars alike) assume a circular cross-section (with a constant radius) when inflated. High-quality bike tires are pressure vessels with extraordinarily supple (flexible) walls. They're all round; their inflation pressure forces them to be round. On a clincher, changing the rim width changes the radius of the casing arc, but it doesn't change whether it's circular.

Some people wax poetic about "round" vs. "lightbulb-shaped" tires, but both kinds of tires have round cross-section casings. Road tire designers can alter the shape of the tread rubber a tiny bit by playing with its thickness, but the underlying casing is round.

Mountain bike treads can have a non-round cross section even though the underlying casing is round. In extreme cases (e.g. A 2.1-inch tire on a 40 mm-internal-width rim) the casing can assume an arc that puts the cornering knobs in the "wrong" place, but again, the underlying casing is still round (it has a constant radius across its section).

I believe some of the old Schwinn "krate" kids' bikes from the '70s came with "drag tires," which were old-style clinchers with enough rubber at the edges of the tread to create a squared-off profile when inflated. But these are hardly comparable to modern racing tires.


The wind tunnel seems to think there are significant differences between tire shapes. Contis kick the crap out of the rounder vittorias... and it didn't sell well but schwalbe had a tt tire that was shaped faster. The data is real even those the differences in shape might not leap out for the naked eye. check blather about bikes site, among others.


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2017 7:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 9:12 pm
Posts: 538
Location: Laguna Niguel
Hear it from Gerard himself

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_ ... 0180066309


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2017 8:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 5:52 am
Posts: 559
the posting on bike rumor on this thing started quite the shit storm. Personally, I'm not buying the 1X for road concept. I've also ridden some big tires at low pressure (28C at 75 pounds) and found them to be a little bouncy. I prefer 25c at 100 psi


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2017 9:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 4:36 am
Posts: 564
spud wrote:
the posting on bike rumor on this thing started quite the shit storm


Sometimes I'm amazed their commenters can walk and breath at the same time.

_________________
bike | instagram | strava


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2017 10:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2017 5:30 pm
Posts: 274
spud wrote:
the posting on bike rumor on this thing started quite the shit storm. Personally, I'm not buying the 1X for road concept. I've also ridden some big tires at low pressure (28C at 75 pounds) and found them to be a little bouncy. I prefer 25c at 100 psi

I'm curious what rim width you were running. I'm 77kg right now and find anything over 70 to feel overly firm with 25mm (nominal) tires on 21mm internal rims. When I was running 15-17mm internal stuff 28mm didn't feel fast and had a bit of bounce to them at low pressure but it feels so much better on a more supportive rim.


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Jun 25, 2017 1:40 am 
Offline
in the industry

Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 4:57 am
Posts: 475
Location: Newport Beach, CA
spud wrote:
the posting on bike rumor on this thing started quite the shit storm. Personally, I'm not buying the 1X for road concept.


We had a good time with the BR comments at the Press Launch. We had our own "Jimmy Kimmel's Mean Tweets" round table at dinner. It isn't for everyone and most innovations are indeed that way. The concept of 1x was also reserved for DH/4x MTB riders for several years. Finally 1 x 11s seemed to get it close enough that companies started making 1x specific MTB. The 1 x 12s really solved the range issue and other than the 500% range that isn't required on the road, the 1 x 12s will allow "the masses" to enjoy it on the pavement as well.

We didn't need aerobars, 8 speed cassettes, electronic shifting, disc brakes, thru axles, etc.

-SD

_________________
http://www.3Tcycling.com
https://www.strava.com/athletes/164090


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Jun 25, 2017 2:30 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2016 10:32 am
Posts: 296
SuperDave wrote:
We didn't need ... 8 speed cassettes


When 8 speed cassettes were introduced, they previously had 7 speed cassettes, not 9 speed cassettes.

_________________
[6.6kg of no carbon fiber]
[2lo8.wordpress.com]
Your one-stop source for information and reviews on cheap eBay bike junk.


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Jun 25, 2017 5:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 8:30 pm
Posts: 5809
Location: Bay Area
RyanH wrote:
This wider tire thing is baffling to me because while it makes sense on paper, . I can't remember if it was on here or at the Paceline, but the consensus was that 25mm tubulars was about ideal for handling and feel and many, including myself, found 27mm tires to be a bit vague. I nearly specc'd out an Eriksen with clearance for 35s and plans to run 32s most of the time until I actually tried it on the Caadx, I didn't like it at all. I felt disconnected.

Is this a clincher thing or taking advantage of people that believe bigger = better? Is anyone actually running ~30mm and prefer the feel?


paceline isn't a place I'd trust or data especially given my experience with many of them IRL. They're 1 step removed from Velocipede types who firmly believe that any production bike is a pile of shit and only 10-12 people are qualified to build actual bikes. There are exceptions, of course, but they generally seem to be on the more traditionalist, less data driven or real world side of things and treat advances as marketing ploys (and often rightfully so).

I know a lot of people that run 27 or 28s and love it. Not many "race" tires are made wider yet, but the few that come in at 30PSI are liked by those that I know that have tried them. One that is over the moon with 30's races them in US PRT crits and last year podium'd a few crits at that level on 28s. That feeling of being disconnected is precisely what they want- not to have the jarring ride of 21s or 23s at high pressure. Even people that don't race seem to like it and I can't think of a single person of any demographic that I have ever met that disliked it.

_________________
Don't take me too seriously. The only person that doesn't hate Froome.
Gramz
Failed Custom Bike


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Jun 25, 2017 9:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:08 am
Posts: 833
SuperDave wrote:
The concept of 1x was also reserved for DH/4x MTB riders for several years. Finally 1 x 11s seemed to get it close enough that companies started making 1x specific MTB. The 1 x 12s really solved the range issue and other than the 500% range that isn't required on the road, the 1 x 12s will allow "the masses" to enjoy it on the pavement as well.

-SD


1x became popular in mountain biking because mountain bikers find it too mentally taxing to figure out their front shifting during riding. Maybe some roadies have that problem but I love my 2x and use it all the time.


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Jun 26, 2017 2:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 9:12 pm
Posts: 538
Location: Laguna Niguel
1x is lighter, more aero, more gear range, easier to use, less maintenance, less chance to drop your chain, cheaper to manufacture and build, aesthetically pleasing, and feasible now with 11 and soon 12 speeds in the rear to give the proper steps. It's not for everyone right now, but it's the way things are going and will only get better. Look at the gear range of a 46t front ring and a 10-36 or 10-40 in back for instance. Change your chainring accordingly for the terrain/fitness level. Once you let your ego go that you need the same chainrings as Chris Froome and do the math, it makes sense. Yes you lose a little, but gain so much more.

Hypothetical 46t chainring with 12 speed cassette, tweak it as you will:

10 (between 53x11/12, plenty of top end for anyone short of World Tour)- 11-12-13-14-16-18-21-24-28-34-40 (34x28/29)

Eddy Merckx would have cried tears of joy

Current 11 speed 10-42 I've been riding, the only place I don't like it is the bottom teeth where it's 2 teeth jumps, low end doesn't bother me since I'm not actually "racing" in those gears and cadence isn't as hyper important like when going from 30 to 31 mph

10-12-14-16-18-21-24-28-32-36-42

Maybe mountain bikers aren't as dumb as you think

44t with 10-36t 12 speed cassette

10-11-12-13-14-15-17-20-24-28-32-36

That give you a top end of ~53 x 12 and low end of ~34 x 28. I find it hard to believe most people on here would need more than that on the road


Last edited by Zitter on Mon Jun 26, 2017 4:44 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Jun 26, 2017 4:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2009 7:35 pm
Posts: 160
I used 1X 11 speed on my cross bike that I rode basically 50/50 on road and gravel/dirt. I originally had 2X but switched to 1X when (in rainy weather) everything was getting coated with dirt and mud. 1X was less to clean and also more reliable than 2X in these conditions. I didn't really find the gear spacing a problem but I also wasn't trying to hit some ideal cadence on the road. Also, my compact 2/11 only has 15 unique gears. So, 12 speed isn't that much different. I also rode 33mm semi-knobby (smooth in the middle, knobby on the sides) tires. They weren't that much different on the road. Sure you could feel the additional weight and rolling resistance but it was not like night and day.


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Jun 26, 2017 5:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:03 am
Posts: 493
Location: Madison, WI USA
romalor wrote:
The wind tunnel seems to think there are significant differences between tire shapes. Contis kick the crap out of the rounder vittorias... and it didn't sell well but schwalbe had a tt tire that was shaped faster.

You may want to re-read my post. I never said that any differences in tire shape were aerodynamically insignificant. I said that high-end bicycle tire casings all assume a round cross-section. To wit:
youngs_modulus wrote:
All bicycle tire casings (clinchers and tubulars alike) assume a circular cross-section (with a constant radius) when inflated. High-quality bike tires are pressure vessels with extraordinarily supple (flexible) walls. They're all round; their inflation pressure forces them to be round. On a clincher, changing the rim width changes the radius of the casing arc, but it doesn't change whether it's circular.

I further specified that different tread thickness profiles allow small variations in net tire shape, even though the underlying casing has a round cross-section.
youngs_modulus wrote:
Road tire designers can alter the shape of the tread rubber a tiny bit by playing with its thickness, but the underlying casing is round.

In my original post, I was referring to the common belief that clincher rim beads somehow manage to make the casing non-round even where the two do not touch. That situation is effectively impossible given the extremely low bending stiffness of high-quality casings and the extremely high bending stresses that inflation pressure would apply to the casing anywhere it tried to assume a non-round shape.

I say "effectively" because it's not theoretically impossible, but the effect would be so tiny as to be unnoticeable to riders and pretty difficult to measure. A wider rim and larger-diameter fire do result in significantly increased camber stiffness and probably reduced slip angle, which is why many riders prefer this setup. They're detecting a real difference in feel; they're just mistaken about the source of that difference. But "camber stiffness" and "slip angle are esoteric tire engineering concepts, and it's pretty reasonable that most riders would ascribe the difference to something that seems more intuitive to them.

romalor wrote:
The data is real even those the differences in shape might not leap out for the naked eye. check blather about bikes site, among others.

Oh, yes! Blather 'Bout Bikes. Lovely site. I read it regularly. Oddly, the author (Tom Anhalt) and I are both bike-obsessed mechanical engineers working in the medical device industry. We've never met, but Tom certainly seems competent (at the very least).

I'd bet folding money that Tom would agree with me about tire casing shapes—that their casing cross-sections are circular between the rim beads. Pressure vessels, even composite ones like bicycle tires, are pretty simple from an engineering perspective. Predicting their deformed shape under internal pressure is trivial.

I've not seen Tom speculate on why GP4000s tend to test faster than other tires, but I'd go so far as to say he and I would both ascribe the Conti wind tunnel results to tread pattern and, to a lesser extent, tread profile. If you can find a citation wherein Tom ascribes the GP4000 results to casing shape, I'll be mightily impressed. I'll also have to reach out to him so I can ask (politely) why the hell he thinks Conti was able to produce a non-round casing cross section on a supple bias-ply bike tire with a symmetric/quasi-symmetric layup. ;)

It's worth noting that Flo Cycling has a blog post about trying to capture the profile of an inflated GP 4000. Their published profile shows what looks like a non-round casing, though they don't call out where the tread begins.

IMHO, their method of acquiring the profile is deeply flawed. They evidently used modeling clay to make a mold of the mounted tire and then somehow measured that. This is weird, because it's worse than measuring the tire directly (via a Faro arm, or, better still, 3D scanning.

I suspect they sawed the hardened mold in half, scanned the cross section with a conventional scanner (as you would a photo) and then measured the cross-section in Photoshop or something. This is odd; it's inherently less accurate than a 3D scan would be and distortion of the clay as it dried would be an issue. One commenter asks "why didn't you just laser-scan it?" The answer is pretty unsatisfying: "our mold was good enough." If they already knew the shape of the profile with great precision, they could say that. But since they don't have anything to compare it to, they have no idea whether it's good enough.

Flo Cycling is pretty transparent in publishing their testing methods and results, and I appreciate that Much of what they do seems methodically sound, at least to me. But I saw one exchange wherein the Flo people clearly had never heard of the statistical concept of "error bars," used for quantifying uncertainty. I found that a little shocking. In That context, the decision not to 3D scan the tire is disappointing but less than surprising.


Edit: fixed typos


Top
   
Posted: Mon Jun 26, 2017 5:28 pm 


Top
   
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 26, 2017 6:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 12:23 am
Posts: 189
Location: Veneto
I quite like it TBH but I have an S5 anyway.

Odd that 3T haven't designed an integrated stem/bar combo for it. The headset also looks a little poor old fashioned considering canyon's offering.

Finally, shame it'll be in Red as the final colour.


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 218 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2 3 4 515 Next

   Similar Topics   Author   Replies   Views   Last post 
There are no new unread posts for this topic. Rotate saddle on aero road bike?

in Road

mrsparkle

4

577

Tue Oct 10, 2017 6:35 pm

BeeSeeBee View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Want new disc aero <15lbs road bike... confused

[ Go to page: 1 2 3 4 ]

in Road

unlucky

47

5135

Fri Oct 06, 2017 8:14 pm

Renne View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Wide clearance road forks

in Road

thedonnydino

6

445

Sun Jul 30, 2017 2:10 am

mpulsiv View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Alloy road bar with a drop curve like the ENVE SES Aero Road Bar?

in Road

VTR1000SP2

11

1543

Wed Oct 04, 2017 4:08 pm

cwdzoot View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Aero bars on non aero race bike

[ Go to page: 1 2 ]

in Road

gurk700

16

3231

Sat Mar 18, 2017 6:32 pm

kode54 View the latest post


All times are UTC+01:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], JayUK, kookie, stevec1975 and 25 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited