2012 scott FOIL

Discuss light weight issues concerning road bikes & parts.
Post Reply
bikedoc
Posts: 642
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 3:16 pm

by bikedoc

how can they call that 'aero'
oh wait its because no one know what 'aero' is, there is no standard just marketing.

by Weenie


bikedoc
Posts: 642
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 3:16 pm

by bikedoc

as for steerer angles, Why does no one do 650c wheels anymore??? then smaller riders could have a frame that fits, with no toe overlap and decent handling rather than make them ride wheels that are to big and have a head tube angle that makes the handling horrible

2002SaecoReplica
Posts: 1944
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 10:02 pm
Location: Getting dropped

by 2002SaecoReplica

bikedoc wrote:as for steerer angles, Why does no one do 650c wheels anymore??? then smaller riders could have a frame that fits, with no toe overlap and decent handling rather than make them ride wheels that are to big and have a head tube angle that makes the handling horrible


If you're in a situation where toe overlap is an issue you've got bigger problems to deal with. Namely, your body about to hit the pavement.
- Zipp rims will break if you look at them too hard
- R-Sys wheels will spontaneously explode
- The ZG crankset will never, ever exist
- Everyone needs Lightweights, even if they're fat and old
- Parts actually made of metal are SO 10 years ago

Epic-o
Posts: 621
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2007 7:18 pm

by Epic-o

andy2 wrote:With all due respect to Scott and Trek engineers and marketing depts - but producing pictures on the effects of trunctuated airfoils at 90°, even with diffetent yaw angles... Seriously, the 1930s called and they want their science back!

It's like being blinded by science by the mighty 1972 Chevy Vega Kammback!
I mean really folks..


Can you elaborate this a bit more?

bikedoc
Posts: 642
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 3:16 pm

by bikedoc

2002SaecoReplica wrote:
bikedoc wrote:as for steerer angles, Why does no one do 650c wheels anymore??? then smaller riders could have a frame that fits, with no toe overlap and decent handling rather than make them ride wheels that are to big and have a head tube angle that makes the handling horrible


If you're in a situation where toe overlap is an issue you've got bigger problems to deal with. Namely, your body about to hit the pavement.


rubbish, great if that was true then they could make the smaller bikes with normal steerer angles instead of slackening them off.

ok you only normally jam your toe into the wheel at low speed but ive seen a number of riders go down doing u turns and concrete hurts at 5mph as well.

User avatar
prendrefeu
Posts: 8608
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 10:32 pm
Location: Los Feliz, Los Angeles, California
Contact:

by prendrefeu

bikedoc wrote:as for steerer angles, Why does no one do 650c wheels anymore??? then smaller riders could have a frame that fits, with no toe overlap and decent handling rather than make them ride wheels that are to big and have a head tube angle that makes the handling horrible


With the increased production and design of compact frames styles, including but not limited to 'sloping' top tubes in the design, smaller frames that were traditionally restricted to 650c wheels are now able to use 700c wheel sizes. This is why there are less productions of 650c wheels in the market as the years have progressed.
Exp001 || Other projects in the works.

User avatar
andy2
in the industry
Posts: 713
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2007 9:33 pm
Location: Luxembourg / Sweden

by andy2

Epic-O:
Kamm showed in the 1930s that releasing the airflow early decreased drag. The air is of a wing adhering to more surface area thus creating more drag. Aerfoils (or wings if you will) are usually used to produce a flow that is faster on one side in order to produce lift or downforce.


Also the published pictures of turbulence around the diffetent tube shapes all show a tube standing up straight, not very true to the geometry of a bicycle frame.

Another point, the geo table shows a rather pedestrian rider position with a relationship of stack-reach of over 1.51 for the 56 frame. This has to be corporate/marketing driven rather than 'F1-science' driven, catering to dentists than rather than sprinters and creating drag orders of magnitudes far beyond the alleged benefits of the tubeshapes.
Last edited by andy2 on Mon Apr 18, 2011 2:47 am, edited 5 times in total.
rolobikes

thisisatest
Shop Owner
Posts: 1980
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 4:02 am
Location: NoVA/DC

by thisisatest

Image

the numbers dont add up:
the difference in reach from a small to medium is listed as 1mm(!)
the wheelbase differencs is shown as a 9mm difference, with the taller bike being longer.
but with only a 1mm reach difference, AND a slacker head tube angle on the smaller bike, the wheelbase of the small should be LONGER.
which would be extra-stupid.

cyclenutnz
Posts: 762
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2006 5:18 am
Location: Cambridge, New Zealand
Contact:

by cyclenutnz

The wheelbase figure is wrong. Calculated F-C suggests a 1-2mm difference in WB between bikes.

Fork length back calculates to 376mm for whoever was worried about that.

(reach,stack) plot of some aero oriented road bikes. Plenty of options if you need reach of 385mm
Attachments
aerobikes.JPG
http://www.speedtheory.co.nz
http://www.velogicfit.com - 3D Motion Capture and Frame Finder Software

skywalker
Posts: 10
Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2010 2:04 am

by skywalker

Who cares if the "engineering" is actually spot on.
If ya smart enough to know that it just "may" be marketing driven, then ya smart enough to know that the person on the bike is by so far the biggest problem in regard to drag, that the small gains that you get on the frame mean basically nothing to all but the best of the best, and they have there bike specially built anyway...
And if ya not ,and ya wanna believe with the marketing spiel... So what. As long as ya love ya bike...
The bike looks hot.
If you dont think so, dont buy it.
If you dont care about looks, ride one, if ya like it buy it, if ya dont like it dont buy it.
I could be lighter, that would make me ride faster
I could train better to produce more power, that would make me faster
I could ride in a better position, that would make me ride faster
I could think of another dozen things that would make me faster.
I reckon it looks hot, im buying.

User avatar
andy2
in the industry
Posts: 713
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2007 9:33 pm
Location: Luxembourg / Sweden

by andy2

Cool, put a beat to that and you have their first commercial. :lol:
rolobikes

jooo
Posts: 1508
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 3:48 am

by jooo

Can Scott and Specialized please come up with some names that don't suck? Foil and Venge :roll:

User avatar
prendrefeu
Posts: 8608
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 10:32 pm
Location: Los Feliz, Los Angeles, California
Contact:

by prendrefeu

F01 was better. :cry:
Exp001 || Other projects in the works.

User avatar
mrowkoob
Posts: 1487
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2004 7:35 pm
Location: Middle of nowhere, EU

by mrowkoob

I fail to see the improvement compared to the Addict which to me is a more radical design in every way.
The unbearable wallet lightness of being a weightweenie

User avatar
funhog1
Posts: 234
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2008 11:59 am

by funhog1

Yeah. Totally,

With all the marketing

it's a good thing they didn't call it the FA1.... :|

Epic Venge Fail.
Buy it. & Ride it.
Only if it has a high margin of utility.

by Weenie


Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post