Weight Weenies
* FAQ    * Search    * Trending Topics
* Login   * Register
HOME Listings Blog NEW Galleries NEW FAQ Contact About Impressum
It is currently Wed Nov 22, 2017 7:49 pm

All times are UTC+01:00





Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 42 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2 3 Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Sep 08, 2017 4:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2017 2:10 am
Posts: 184
Eh, I don't know. There are certain frames out there that due to lay-up or whatever mysterious reason, just feel "racier" and more lively than others. Not saying this is the case with the F10/8 as I have never ridden one. Loads of carbon frames feel dead and slow though, thats for sure.


Top
   
Posted: Fri Sep 08, 2017 4:49 am 


Top
   
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 08, 2017 6:21 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2015 3:30 am
Posts: 262
I have no test lab figures to back up my feeling, but the ride feel of a high-end frame is much much nicer, more lively and easier to accelerate. I didn't read any review about the frameset and I'm satisfied with the result.


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Sep 08, 2017 8:25 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2017 8:05 am
Posts: 124
I've ridden and compared a fake 1st gen venge against a real venge and its noodles compared to the authentic version. Compared my authentic venge to my F8 and its all around 100% better. Compared my F10 to the F8 and its only marginal improvements.

_________________
S-WORKS VENGE 1ST GEN
PINARELLO F8
PINARELLO F10
2018 BMC SLR01


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Sep 08, 2017 8:35 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2015 10:10 am
Posts: 214
prendrefeu wrote:
Cognitive biases you should be aware of whenever you're dealing with shit-shows like the cycling industry:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choice-supportive_bias (ie, I chose it, need to defend the investment, yes it's superior)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandwagon_effect (ie, it's the latest and greatest and the media is saying so, the pros are riding it, the cool kids are riding it, therefore yes it's better) (this applies to a lot of social media styles/posts as well, not just in cycling. basically people with narcissism issues just copy the fck out of each other in order to try to get some kind of validation for their existence on this planet and in this lifetime even if those 'likes' are not at all genuine)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias (ie, yes it feels superior after having forked the money over for it)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_correlation (ie, the bike feels superior, not the fact that I feel better today/fitter/good weather/or whatever)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endowment_effect (ie, I bought it (or was given to it by sponsor) therefore I must give it attributes to justify it)

http://coglode.com/gem/price-value-bias (this one should be obvious, if it this cognitive bias isn't obvious to you, you may in fact be the perfect idiot for any marketing department's target goals)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_aversion (ie, you paid for a high-end item, realize that the low-priced item may be just as good, but because you paid for the high-end item/brand name/whatever you will actively and subconsciously dismiss the qualities of the low-priced item in order to compensate for your own internal struggles on being gullible to the bullshit)


It's not just in the cycling-related media (magazine, blog or otherwise) - a lot of posts on forums, WW included, are hilariously displaying these basic cognitive biases and the posters continue to hold those biases no matter what, day after day, month after month, year after year.


excellent post. should be pinned, up, in the forum!


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Sep 08, 2017 8:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2015 10:10 am
Posts: 214
flying wrote:
These days they have gone all mono & so stiff they are similar to riding a wooden bike. Also they expect one degree of stiffness
to accommodate all riders of various weights & strengths



usually of course i dont take serious the manufacturers blabla, but there is one construction method, that seems to make sense to me, specialized calls it "rider first engineered", focus calls it "stable stiffness per size": every size is designed individually and has adapted tube diameters to enshure "perfect ratio of weight and stiffness".

its for shure an expensive construction-method, much more expensive as putting one construction to all sizes.

and: its not only a claim, its verifiable, because, as i already wrote, every size has its own tube diameters (nice side-effect: every size looks well-proportioned! the monster-tubes, f.e., of a colnago c60 in size 48? certainly a matter of taste but not my thing!)


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Sep 08, 2017 10:09 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2004 6:06 pm
Posts: 252
Location: Lower Saxony - Germany
reedplayer wrote:
prendrefeu wrote:
Cognitive biases you should be aware of whenever you're dealing with shit-shows like the cycling industry:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choice-supportive_bias (ie, I chose it, need to defend the investment, yes it's superior)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandwagon_effect (ie, it's the latest and greatest and the media is saying so, the pros are riding it, the cool kids are riding it, therefore yes it's better) (this applies to a lot of social media styles/posts as well, not just in cycling. basically people with narcissism issues just copy the fck out of each other in order to try to get some kind of validation for their existence on this planet and in this lifetime even if those 'likes' are not at all genuine)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias (ie, yes it feels superior after having forked the money over for it)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_correlation (ie, the bike feels superior, not the fact that I feel better today/fitter/good weather/or whatever)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endowment_effect (ie, I bought it (or was given to it by sponsor) therefore I must give it attributes to justify it)

http://coglode.com/gem/price-value-bias (this one should be obvious, if it this cognitive bias isn't obvious to you, you may in fact be the perfect idiot for any marketing department's target goals)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_aversion (ie, you paid for a high-end item, realize that the low-priced item may be just as good, but because you paid for the high-end item/brand name/whatever you will actively and subconsciously dismiss the qualities of the low-priced item in order to compensate for your own internal struggles on being gullible to the bullshit)


It's not just in the cycling-related media (magazine, blog or otherwise) - a lot of posts on forums, WW included, are hilariously displaying these basic cognitive biases and the posters continue to hold those biases no matter what, day after day, month after month, year after year.


excellent post. should be pinned, up, in the forum!


There are even more you should be aware of - the industry is. :)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

_________________
Infos on wide tires, rims and aerodynamics


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Sep 08, 2017 11:53 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 7:45 pm
Posts: 4424
Location: Natovi Landing
reedplayer wrote:
prendrefeu wrote:
Cognitive biases you should be aware of whenever you're dealing with shit-shows like the cycling industry:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choice-supportive_bias (ie, I chose it, need to defend the investment, yes it's superior)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandwagon_effect (ie, it's the latest and greatest and the media is saying so, the pros are riding it, the cool kids are riding it, therefore yes it's better) (this applies to a lot of social media styles/posts as well, not just in cycling. basically people with narcissism issues just copy the fck out of each other in order to try to get some kind of validation for their existence on this planet and in this lifetime even if those 'likes' are not at all genuine)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias (ie, yes it feels superior after having forked the money over for it)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_correlation (ie, the bike feels superior, not the fact that I feel better today/fitter/good weather/or whatever)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endowment_effect (ie, I bought it (or was given to it by sponsor) therefore I must give it attributes to justify it)

http://coglode.com/gem/price-value-bias (this one should be obvious, if it this cognitive bias isn't obvious to you, you may in fact be the perfect idiot for any marketing department's target goals)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_aversion (ie, you paid for a high-end item, realize that the low-priced item may be just as good, but because you paid for the high-end item/brand name/whatever you will actively and subconsciously dismiss the qualities of the low-priced item in order to compensate for your own internal struggles on being gullible to the bullshit)


It's not just in the cycling-related media (magazine, blog or otherwise) - a lot of posts on forums, WW included, are hilariously displaying these basic cognitive biases and the posters continue to hold those biases no matter what, day after day, month after month, year after year.


excellent post. should be pinned, up, in the forum!


Please no ... some of us are well aware of, and trained in this stuff, and have been for many years.

The post's tone, that so many are ignorant, is insulting

None of the above means there isn't some correlation between the cost of frames and how well they ride, even if it's far weaker than the marketing rubbish would have you believe, and there are many exceptions ... assuming otherwise is course a bias itself ...

_________________
----------------------------------------
Stiff, Light, Aero - Pick Three!! :thumbup:


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Sep 08, 2017 1:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 7:28 pm
Posts: 1166
I miss the old weight weenies when people actually weighed things rather than perpetuate the same pointless generic conversations that occur daily on roadbikereview


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Sep 08, 2017 1:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 4:11 pm
Posts: 634
You guys which frame is really one of the most under-estimated on the market...probably due to no marketing efforts or big pro-team riding it...Kuota Khan...


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Sep 08, 2017 2:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2010 6:39 am
Posts: 169
Beaver wrote:
reedplayer wrote:
prendrefeu wrote:
Cognitive biases you should be aware of whenever you're dealing with shit-shows like the cycling industry:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choice-supportive_bias (ie, I chose it, need to defend the investment, yes it's superior)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandwagon_effect (ie, it's the latest and greatest and the media is saying so, the pros are riding it, the cool kids are riding it, therefore yes it's better) (this applies to a lot of social media styles/posts as well, not just in cycling. basically people with narcissism issues just copy the fck out of each other in order to try to get some kind of validation for their existence on this planet and in this lifetime even if those 'likes' are not at all genuine)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias (ie, yes it feels superior after having forked the money over for it)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_correlation (ie, the bike feels superior, not the fact that I feel better today/fitter/good weather/or whatever)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endowment_effect (ie, I bought it (or was given to it by sponsor) therefore I must give it attributes to justify it)

http://coglode.com/gem/price-value-bias (this one should be obvious, if it this cognitive bias isn't obvious to you, you may in fact be the perfect idiot for any marketing department's target goals)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_aversion (ie, you paid for a high-end item, realize that the low-priced item may be just as good, but because you paid for the high-end item/brand name/whatever you will actively and subconsciously dismiss the qualities of the low-priced item in order to compensate for your own internal struggles on being gullible to the bullshit)


It's not just in the cycling-related media (magazine, blog or otherwise) - a lot of posts on forums, WW included, are hilariously displaying these basic cognitive biases and the posters continue to hold those biases no matter what, day after day, month after month, year after year.


excellent post. should be pinned, up, in the forum!


There are even more you should be aware of - the industry is. :)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

There's reason why I really dislike roadbikereview and love tour magazine.
I think there aren't really big differences but some. Of course Tour is biased towards german manufacturers, but bear in in mind that the way they test is not feeling based.
I remember cycling news or some british magazine review stork aeronario, and said it felt really fast. Tour wind tunnel data suggested otherwise.


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Sep 08, 2017 2:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 8:34 pm
Posts: 708
I'm going to try and put a different spin on this.

For myself in the last 5ish years or so these are the bikes I've had just so you know where I'm coming from - I'm a big guy at at 100+KG and ride 5-7,000 Km per year. I don't race I just do this for fitness and fun.

Parlee Z5 with Campy and Fulcrum 0
Storck 0.6 with DA and Enve 3.4
Storck Fenomalist with Chorus and Fulcrum 0
Mosaic RT-1 with ISP DA Di2 and DA C50 Carbon-Aluminum Clinchers
Reynolds 853 Lugged Bike built by Myself on a course in England with Chorus and Fulcrum Zero;s
Argonaut Spacebike with SR and Bora 50 Ultra Tub's
Speedvagen Rugged Road Disc Bike with DA Hydro and Enve 3.4 Disc with CK hubs and then i9 2:1 hubs (trying to make them stiffer)
Scappa Purosangue
Parlee ESX with SR EPS and Campy Bora Ultra 50mm
Salsa Warbird Gravel Bike with SR and i9 wheels (It was patiently waiting for Campy Hydro but of course they didn't bring out PM Calipers...)
BMC ALR01 with Chorus and Fulcrum Zero Carbon
Another Mosaic RT-1 with SR EPS, and Bora Ultra 50mm Clincher
Sitting in the Garage a Storck Visioner - I bought it as a really stiff reference frame (124NM in the Head Tube, 71NM in the BB)

Safe to say I've had a bunch of experience with different materials and Groups and what works (for me) and what doesn't. When on Holiday I've also rented various less expensive Cannondales/Giants that are usually specked with 105 or Apex, that were surprisingly good, as long as nothing rattled.

My collected wisdom after blowing a lot of money and trying a lot of different bikes is that in the end the frame doesn't really matter.

As long as the frame is stiff enough so there are no handling issues (for me the Parlee ESX was scary putting the power down over rises in the drops), and the fork is supple enough to not beat you up (The CX ENVE Disc fork that was on my Speedvagen sucked as a road fork - way too stiff - they made the Road disc fork a lot more supple), buy the frame you like the look of.

After a lot of bikes and a lot of swapping parts what does seem make a lot of difference seems to be wheels and tire pressure. A stiff wheel makes a bike feel a lot more crisp than a stiff frame, especially from low speed. I think this makes sense as at low speed you are putting a lot more torque through the whole system, whereas at high speed the torque is a lot lower but more HP.

My super stiff Storck's really lost something when I went away from a very stiff wheel like the Fulcrum Zero's to ENVE 3.4 (really noodly) or Bora Ultra's (Medium stiffness).

My Reynolds 853 bike feels great with Fulcrum Zero's (Aluminum or Carbon - both very stiff wheels), not as good as with Bora's.

My Argonaut (which was built to be very stiff) felt okay with Bora 50 Ultra Tubs - great with Fulcrum Zero Carbons.

My current RT-1 not bad with Bora Clinchers - great with Fulcrum Zero Carbons (but doesn't look as good).

My Salsa Warbird (I have no other wheels to try as it's disc) not bad but could be better - I suspect it's the CX-Ray spokes in the i9 All Road wheels.

Tire pressure is tire pressure - lower is better and makes a much bigger difference on ride quality than the frame.

So the end the moral of the story is that it's really not the frame - in my experience wheels play a bigger role.

Save the money on the frame and buy great wheels.


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Sep 08, 2017 2:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2015 3:12 pm
Posts: 136
Vermu wrote:
[
There's reason why I really dislike roadbikereview and love tour magazine.
I think there aren't really big differences but some. Of course Tour is biased towards german manufacturers, but bear in in mind that the way they test is not feeling based.
I remember cycling news or some british magazine review stork aeronario, and said it felt really fast. Tour wind tunnel data suggested otherwise.


problem with Tour is some people who take it as gospel.
yes it's quantitative. which is good ONLY IF understood in the proper context.
but what does it actually mean that a bike measures 68N/mm at the bottom bracket?
and moreso, what does it mean comparatively when the other bike is 65N/mm?

what some people take away is simply[xxx brand] is stiffer so it's the best and tour measured it so its objective so its the ultimate truth.

if everything in life was reduced to measurements, no professional photographer would ever shoot a canon, or drive a miata, or choose a porsche over a lamborghini...


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Sep 08, 2017 2:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 11:09 am
Posts: 400
sawyer wrote:
None of the above means there isn't some correlation between the cost of frames and how well they ride, even if it's far weaker than the marketing rubbish would have you believe, and there are many exceptions ... assuming otherwise is course a bias itself ...


But is there really a correlation? Remember the old blind test between 7 lovely handmade frames in which the differences were tiny and in the end the cheapest tubeset scored best?

Then with those top end bikes most of the cost is actually the brand. To wit, a steel Pinarello is hands down way to expensive for what artisans as Zullo manufacture. A Richard Sachs bike is lovely, but the cost is not in line with it's ride quality, yet it's value easily covered by it's uniqueness!

Now onto this thread we have claims of:
- Easier to accelerate: Nonsense. I can not think why a high end frame woul accelrate better.
- Livelier: What's that? Springy? Stiff? Buzzy? Geometry? Not only are these not quantifaible, they are also highly personal. I prefer a stiff frame, whereas someone else loves a Steel standard sized frame.

Sawyer, if there's a correlation between price and how well they ride, it's hard to think of one. In the best case it boils down to personal opinion (some like steel, some stiff carbo), in the worst case it's mostly a sticker slapped on a piece of CF.


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Sep 08, 2017 3:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 10:32 pm
Posts: 8496
Location: Los Feliz, Los Angeles, California
sawyer wrote:
Please no ... some of us are well aware of, and trained in this stuff, and have been for many years.

The post's tone, that so many are ignorant, is insulting

None of the above means there isn't some correlation between the cost of frames and how well they ride, even if it's far weaker than the marketing rubbish would have you believe, and there are many exceptions ... assuming otherwise is course a bias itself ...


For anyone who actually cares, here's an guideline on how to breakdown sawyer's logical fallacies:

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com


But anyway, I'll ask:
What is so "insulting" about the post? Was any person personally attack? Was there an actual attack? Why did you consider it an attack? The last question is important, ask yourself that one, then go back to your cognitive biases. Yes, we all have them, you display them just like many other people here and elsewhere. It's a reality, it's not an attack. I'm not going to stop you or anyone else from doing it, but no one should be blind to it. We do it to each other.

And, actually, is there a correlation between price and quality of how a frame rides? Outside of quantitative data, that correlation is scarce. Feelings can not be quantified, and even if you think you have the same feeling as another person's pro-ported feelings you are probably displaying a segment of primordial empathy, not an actual feeling itself nor a committed agreement of that feeling because you are, always will be and always have been, a separate organism with separate living experiences unique only to you.

As for quantitative data, here or anywhere, in any context, people need to remember what they were taught around 12 years old in a basic science class: scale matters.
For example, a brand can say their wheels are 5% lower CdA compared to their previous model. That's great, but what's the scale? If the original CdA was .05 and the new CdA is .0475, is that really that much of a difference in reality when a living, breathing, and unique organism is entirely in control, operating, and powering the object while subject to their own issues (such as physical, mental, and emotional health) which absolutely affect performance?

"But it all adds up, marginal gains!" Yes, this is true marginal gains in quantitative data does exist. Are you willing to spend the money, time and effort to make sure all of those components in your marginal gains actually work together, not in any counter-acting way, and will not be affected by the moment-to-moment issues of the human operating it? The "gains" actually happen with that human, not the equipment and can only be sustained through continuous effort and support at all times.

Your response is not insulting, but it's falling into the same traps which are being point out to you.

This isn't to say a person should not buy new equipment in their desires to improve [x] where [x] represents perceived performance, emotional gratification, or whatever. Go for it.
The point is: a person needs to make decisions for themselves. Listen to someone else's opinion on equipment, try it out for yourself, be aware of their cognitive bias and your own, then figure out what you need to do from there.

_________________
Exp001 || Other projects in the works.


Last edited by prendrefeu on Fri Sep 08, 2017 3:15 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Sep 08, 2017 3:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2015 3:12 pm
Posts: 136
prendrefeu wrote:
As for quantitative data, here or anywhere, in any context, people need to remember what they were taught around 12 years old in a basic science class: scale matters.
For example, a brand can say their wheels are 20% lower CdA compared to their previous model. That's great, but what's the scale? If the original CdA was .05 and the new CdA is .04, is that really that much of a difference in reality when a living, breathing, and unique organism is entirely in control, operating, and operating the object while subject to their own issues (such as physical, mental, and emotional health) which absolutely affect performance?


i like when people copy paste the drag coefficient of round vs flat / oval / foils to support aerobars.
great, and when youre not riding on the tops, youve got a maximum exposed section of 40cm2.

i saw a video where a louis garneau rep mentioned how they rerouted the lacing of boa (fishing) wires on their shoes to improve aerodynamics. dont know how anyone can say that with a straight face......


Top
   
Posted: Fri Sep 08, 2017 3:13 pm 


Top
   
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 42 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2 3 Next

   Similar Topics   Author   Replies   Views   Last post 
There are no new unread posts for this topic. Using your good bike through the winter?

[ Go to page: 1 2 ]

in Road

mike001100

25

2163

Sun Oct 01, 2017 10:41 pm

fromtrektocolnago View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Need advice on a good bike cam

in Road

TonyM

7

777

Tue May 16, 2017 6:17 am

TonyM View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Recommend a good Zipp 303 inner tube...

in Road

diegogarcia

1

484

Sun Jun 18, 2017 7:19 am

Jepas View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Attachment(s) Good rain overshoes other than velotoze

[ Go to page: 1 2 ]

in Road

nemeseri

28

3038

Thu May 04, 2017 11:10 am

dalex View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. White, good cables for Campagnolo build

in Road

Leviathan

8

436

Sat Nov 18, 2017 2:17 pm

bm0p700f View the latest post


All times are UTC+01:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], hidefguy, Lionheart, sungod and 33 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