Asymmetry?

[Cyclist33]

My Merlin carbon frame is asymmetrical. The chainstay on the non drive side is fatter although from side on you wouldn't know.

Also the seat tube has what I describe as a chine along the non drive side on its lower half, although obviously the ridge is not an arete being as the monocoque is smoothly carboniferous.

What is the thinking behind these design points? By contrast the roughly equivalent planet x and ribble frames appear to be symmetrical, and the bloke at my lbs seemed quietly impressed that the merlin frame seemed to be more considered. But I haven't got anything to benchmark it ginst having had no prior carbon experience.

Cheers

Stu

 

[fossyant]

The drive sides are normally fatter for drive side stresses. Think someone built yours in a mirror

 

[Ian H]

The drive sides are normally fatter for drive side stresses. Think someone built yours in a mirror

It's obviously a continental left-hand drive model.

 

[Yellow Saddle]

The asymmetrical design was pioneered by Pinarello and then taken to the stupid extreme by Cervelo with its BB-Right concept. It is stupid, stupid, stupid. If you go to the BB-Right website (dot org, I think), you'll see a load of pseudo-technical stuff there but nothing that explains why, that makes sense. Most people who read it have their eyes go wonky and then nod, which is what they want.

Asymmetrical in a marketing brochure sounds so much more thought-through than symmetrical.
Asymmetrical sounds like weight is reduced where it is not needed.
Asymmetrical sounds like stuff that is so technically perfect that it doesn't have to be aesthetically pleasing.
Asymmetrical is Bullshit.

They will argue that the chain tension requires higher strength from the chainstay on the right than on the left. However, both are strong enough and has been since the chain-drive bike has been invented. It is Bullshit.
They will argue that the way torque enters the BB via a pipe on the left and is fed directly into the chainring on the right, requires asymmetrical technology.
It is bullshit. The use of the word "technology" is Bullshit.
I once did not have a black spoke of the right length to fix a broken wheel with all black spokes and gave the customer a silver spoke in stead. I told the customer he just got, at the price of normal "technology", asymmetrical pigmentation technology. He loved it.
But it is Bullshit.

 

[Cyclist33]

The drive sides are normally fatter for drive side stresses. Think someone built yours in a mirror

Mind you I am left handed so it might work out in my favour

 

[potsy]

Or to cut straight to the chase..

Asymmetrical is Bullshit

 

[Cyclist33]

The asymmetrical design was pioneered by Pinarello and then taken to the stupid extreme by Cervelo with its BB-Right concept. It is stupid, stupid, stupid. If you go to the BB-Right website (dot org, I think), you'll see a load of pseudo-technical stuff there but nothing that explains why, that makes sense. Most people who read it have their eyes go wonky and then nod, which is what they want.

Asymmetrical in a marketing brochure sounds so much more thought-through than symmetrical.
Asymmetrical sounds like weight is reduced where it is not needed.
Asymmetrical sounds like stuff that is so technically perfect that it doesn't have to be aesthetically pleasing.
Asymmetrical is Bullshit.

They will argue that the chain tension requires higher strength from the chainstay on the right than on the left. However, both are strong enough and has been since the chain-drive bike has been invented. It is Bullshit.
They will argue that the way torque enters the BB via a pipe on the left and is fed directly into the chainring on the right, requires asymmetrical technology.
It is bullshit. The use of the word "technology" is Bullshit.
I once did not have a black spoke of the right length to fix a broken wheel with all black spokes and gave the customer a silver spoke in stead. I told the customer he just got, at the price of normal "technology", asymmetrical pigmentation technology. He loved it.
But it is Bullshit.

Thanks, that is more technical than I was expecting lol. To be fair to merlin, although they talked up the bike there was no marketing whatsoever around the asymmetry. I do like that it isn't symmetrical though, mainly for comedy value.

It doesn't look like a botch job though, rather, a design feature.

 

[Yellow Saddle]

Thanks, that is more technical than I was expecting lol. To be fair to merlin, although they talked up the bike there was no marketing whatsoever around the asymmetry. I do like that it isn't symmetrical though, mainly for comedy value.

It doesn't look like a botch job though, rather, a design feature.

My bike is also asymmetrical. It has a chain on the right, nothing on the left.

 

[Cyclist33]

My bike is also asymmetrical. It has a chain on the right, nothing on the left.

Yebbut, I said the frame

 

[Yellow Saddle]

Yebbut, I said the frame

The chainstay on the right has a dent to accommodate the granny gear. It IS asymmetrical.
paper covers rock

 

[Cyclist33]

The chainstay on the right has a dent to accommodate the granny gear. It IS asymmetrical.
paper covers rock

Mine is asymmetrical on the other side though.

Rock makes paper creasy.

 

[Yellow Saddle]

Mine is asymmetrical on the other side though.

Rock makes paper creasy.

Plotting....plotting...plotting......

Screw that, it is all bullshit.

 

[fossyant]

My bike is also asymmetrical. It has a chain on the right, nothing on the left.

No left crank then, or pedal.

 

[Cyclist33]

No left crank then, or pedal.

Scissors cut paper lol

 

[winjim]

If I may interject, and while we're on the subject... asymmetrical rims to even out spoke tensions in dished wheels: bullshit or not bullshit?