Carbon frame

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

Drago

Legendary Member
But thats the point Mr Dane - different bikes differ due to the design, construction, profiles etc, and some carbon will ride better than alloy, and some alloy will ide better than carbon. The material alone has little to do with it.

Your experience is the opposite to mine - it clearly can't be the materials themselves as there is zero correlation, so it must be another factor.
 

Vapin' Joe

Formerly known as Smokin Joe
What the feck is "Road buzz"?

Sixty years cycling and I've never experienced it.
 

Drago

Legendary Member
Its a made up phenomenon invented by bicycle journos, who several months prior were writing for model railway magazines, to give them something to write about when reviewing this weeks far eastern identikit offering.
 

SkipdiverJohn

Deplorable Brexiteer
Location
London
It depends very much on the design and construction rather than material. My alloy Felt gives a lass harsh ride than my carbon Boredman. The cycling magazines talk absolute guff about carbon soaking up road buzz.

All structures and materials have a resonant frequency, which can give rise to some unpleasant characteristics if vibrations of those frequencies occur with the thing you are riding on or in. Any exact multiple of those resonant frequencies also results in 2nd, 3rd 4th order etc harmonics, but at a lower amplitude.
 

monkers

Veteran
All structures and materials have a resonant frequency, which can give rise to some unpleasant characteristics if vibrations of those frequencies occur with the thing you are riding on or in. Any exact multiple of those resonant frequencies also results in 2nd, 3rd 4th order etc harmonics, but at a lower amplitude.

That's pretty much it. Some engineers like me who have some history in working in NVH, will prefer to say 'natural frequency of vibration' rather than 'resonant frequency', though you are correct that you will find it in many texts. The word 'resonance' adds an unnecessary ambiguity, since we use the word 'resonance' is another more specific way. We also do not consider a material to have a natural frequency of vibration per se, since this has other dimensional variables and changes with the magnitude and direction of any applied forces.

To us, a system has a natural frequency of vibration. Further vibrations that are induced in the system by disturbing forces or energies may be at some other frequency which can be an unpleasant effect. This is more akin to 'resonance' and is the reason why that a resonator is required at a carefully determined and specific point along the length of the exhaust system. The Triumph Stag is a prime visual example. It has oversized exhaust tailpipes that schoolboys and motoring journalists got rather excited about. The truth is that
they were not a styling exercise, but rather that this position was the the optimal position of tuned length for the fitment of the resonator boxes.

Of course mass damping is a further method of tuning out or reducing resonant frequencies, but there is little point in making a system from a lightweight material only to need to add mass to tune its resonant length.

The second, third, etc are harmonics of the same frequency. An out of balance wheel that peaks at say 60 mph, will also peak again at 120mph with twice the intensity,

Anyway I think that's enough from me.
 

SheilaH

Guest
Road buzz & comfort are far more likely to be influenced by tyres than any frame.

...and seatpost.

In general, for a frame of same mass and similar tube construction you won't see much difference between steel, aluminium or Ti in terms of stiffness (or compliance) So the 'steel is real' thing is, to the best of my understanding, blx. Carbon fibre frames offer a bit more stiffness weight for weight, which is why you can get a 800g CF frame that isn't noodly as hell, provided that the CF is layed up correctly.

But it isn't as innately stiff as the marketing would have you believe and this revolves around a misunderstanding of the material properties. Carbon fibre itself is incredibly stiff, but a frame is almost 50% epoxy...which isn't. Added to which, CF has to be layed up as a laminate running in all directions which further reduces the stiffness, and has to done correctly to cope with the loading. I've had at least 6 CF bikes, and they have all felt different.
 

monkers

Veteran
Frames made to the same size, design, tube shapes etc will have broadly similar compliance. If identically dimensioned frames were made up with only variation to wall thickness so that each frame had equal stiffness, the carbon frame will be lighter.

Tradionally frames were made in pretty similar farm gate styles from cylindrical tubing. A carbon frame made this way will be lighter but provide not so much in benefit, and inevitably cost much more.

The biggest advantage to a carbon frame is with the lay up process. The design engineer can vary the shapes and sections of the tubing pretty much at will, allow the introduction of more aero tube profiles, allow the addition of extra stiffness to the frame stiffness where required, and design in more compliance where desirable. It is this flexibility that introduces benefits.

It is not that carbon has much different modulus of elasticity to commonly used metals, but that the lay up process allows variation that are much more difficult to achieve with metals.
 
Road buzz & comfort are far more likely to be influenced by tyres than any frame.
You say that but I swapped all my kit and wheels over from a 653 frame to a Carbon frame. I couldn't believe the difference. I could ride over grids and not notice them on the carbon.

Obviously tyres will make a difference but exactly the same kit apart from the frame.
 
Top Bottom