At 11:42 PM -0800 1/13/09, ternst wrote:
>I think the "feeling'"one gets when riding a bike of this style is
>one of a resposive controlled float.
>Years ago riders pedaled and spun more with their legs from the hips
>down and using supple ankle motion.
>what they call riders myths and old wives's tales, but when you
>actually rode bikes on dirt, cobblestone, asphalt, and cement roads
>in plus cinder, dirt, masonite, plywood, hardwood, asphalt, and
>cement tracks, you will know what you feel and how it handles.
In our research, we have found that many, but perhaps not all, "old wives' tales" are grounded in fact, even if the explanations aren't always correct. Thinwall, high-end tubing does make a more responsive bike, even if that bike is more flexible, and not stiffer, as many riders (me included) used to think. In fact, we now think it is BECAUSE it is more flexible. (We call it planing.)
This example shows why theoretical research is not much good. You first have to ride the bikes, see how they feel, then think about why that might be. Then you can go and design tests, like our double-blind test of frame stiffness, to see whether your hypotheses are correct.
The opposite approach, along the lines of "Well, we can show that the high-end bikes aren't stiffer, so stiffness clearly doesn't matter," misses an important part, and then you get heavy-gauge OS steel bikes that are lifeless for most riders.
That is also why bicycle history has to be an important component of any research into bicycle performance, handling, etc. Bicycles are too poorly understood to obtain good designs from a blank sheet of paper. Only by looking at how things have been done over the last century do you get guidance that allows you to look in the right direction when doing this research.
Jan Heine
Editor
Bicycle Quarterly
140 Lakeside Ave #C
Seattle WA 98122
http://www.vintagebicyclepress.com