Things to consider when overthinking the relationship between the tube cross sections in relation to a bike's ride and the physical abilities of the frame. I am speeking from my own conclusions in progress, based on armchair engineering and too much re-reading of BQ. Bicyle frames while appearing basic are really a fairly complex collection of three dimensional tubes with more possible combinations than I can really get my head around.
As Grant was quoted above the way you ride will play a huge roll. How you pedal, natural cadence etc. may or may not have a certain synergy with different bicycles in different conditions. Heat treated steels will flex to a greater extent without plastic deformation than a non heat treated steel, and therefore are used in lighter or thinner sections, but the tube OD is generally increased to moderate flex. So does that infer that I can bounce around on my Roadeo, it will flex more, but not retain a cold set from the bending? Do I want to experiment with a $2k inventment and increased risk? hell yeah, otherwise i would buy a bike build out of 1mm straight gage and have giant legs. It is common knowledge that a surly cross check is overbuilt as a cross bike. Where does the Legolas fit in? How far is a Roadeo from a Legolas? or a Sachs for that matter? and what kind of abuses is one willing to put into the bike with respect to replacement cost and personal risk? Back to the OP's question, I would still love to have all the historic data to, overthinking it is part of the fun Rob P.S. something like this: http://www.olympus-ims.com/en/35/ would let you disect a frame with tube thicknesses 0.5mm and greater, even map out the butts, I keep meaning to ask Jan if they can get their hands on one, he made his way into a wind tunel for goodness sake he should be able to get one of these. On Mar 4, 8:46 am, Esteban <proto...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks for that! Remember the brochures for the Ram & Rom? They were > described as go anywhere road bikes, with photos of the bikes off > road. And many of us have discovered, the Ram/Rom can take a lickin' > off road. I'm not sure I'd do the same with a Roadeo, which is made > for the road. This being said, the Ram/Rom can be built into a light > build, and it's comfortable and it can haul. They are on the road > side of the all-rounder. The Roadeo seems more purpose-built... Which > is cool! > > On Mar 4, 7:31 am, Horace <max...@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote: > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > > From: "gr...@rivbike.com" <grantmill...@gmail.com> > > > Date: Jul 9 2009, 1:21 pm > > > Subject: Frame-Bike Plans (some) > > > To: RBW Owners Bunch > > > > Newlite Roadbike. TheROADEO<---final name, final spelling, thanks > > > for all your input and don't take offense. > > > > This is really Mark's bike, by which I mean he asked for it/suggested > > > it as a bike for clubbies. He's a club rider a couple of days a week, > > > and rides his cross bikes--which to me are light enough, at 19-20lb, > > > even with fatty tires (and he's still the fastest by a good margin, > > > and the humblest). But he sees his fellow clubbies buying road bikes > > > with carbon this and that, and was thinking hmm, they should get a > > > nice lugged steel bike, and if we made it light enough and roadynuff > > > they probably would. > > > Originally,'twas gunnabe for short reach brakes, but nobody here > > > really rides with those anymore, so, with some input from Jay's, > > > they'll use standard reach brakes, which means...about 56mm reach, > > > about like the 'bouillet. > > > TUBING: The goal is a clubbie bike, so it's going to be clubbie light, > > > and it should, ideally, be ridding by somebody who is, if not clubbie > > > light, at least knows how to ride light. A Nureyev-like 225-pounder > > > who lifts over bumps and veers around pothholes and rides 32mm tires > > > at 85psi rides lighter than a Nagurski-like 150-pounder who rides 23mm > > > tires at 115psi and hits everything with a stiff body and locked arms. > > > So, it's hard to give this bike a weight limit. I should point out > > > that you aren't buying an engine with this bike; you're supplying the > > > engine, and it's good to somewhat match the engine's weight with the > > > frame's weight. > > > OK: Up to 57cm, the main tube butts are 0.65, with 0.4bellies. Bigger > > > than that, 0.8 butts with 0.6bellies. It's superstrong heat-treated > > > steel, so strength isn't much of an issue. Flex is more of an issue, > > > but nobody really anymore believes that flexless frames are the goal > > > (I never have). A more rigid frame matters if you're toting weight, > > > but not as much if you aren't, and as we introduce this as a > > > superlight clubbie-bike, its flex-under-a-touring-load shouldn't > > > matter.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
