Please stop. This is not a design change? or This?
The material allows one to make design changes based on the fact that carbon fiber can be molded into almost any shape while keeping the same properties.
Originally posted by: Cogman
Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
Originally posted by: Cogman
Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
Originally posted by: Cogman
Originally posted by: edro
You underestimate the costs involved in engineering and fabricating a high end piece of equipment.
Me thinks you overestimate said costs. Its a bike, the biggest changes to them have come in the form of materials engineering. The designs have essentially remained the same for the last 20 years.
No, they haven't. Carbon Fiber, Full-Suspension mtb designs have evolved immensely over the last ten years.
Carbon Fiber used to be an unreliable, poorly executed design on bikes and is now being used almost exclusively by riders in the Tour de France.
Also note, high end components/bikes are almost all hand-made, adding a lot to the cost.
Carbon Fiber is not a design change, it is a materials change. The only "new" design element to bikes in the past 20 years is suspension. Doesn't leave a whole lot of work for engineers.
Though, I would also concede that hand crafting will add a fair amount to the cost of a bike. I just done see some ground braking design changes going on. There are still peddles, a gear shifter, a seat, and brakes, and they still operate in about the exact same way as they did 20 years ago. (The modern gear shifter design dates back to the 1950's)
Wrong again. The first Carbon Fiber bikes used carbon fiber tubing epoxied to aluminum lugs/components(ie. Head tube, chain stays). Over time, more parts of the frame have been able to be comprised of Carbon Fiber to finally a monocoque construction.
In that time, the ability to change the characteristics of the Carbon Fiber for particular areas of the frame for more strength, rigidity, lightness, etc has evolved.
B/c of Carbon Fiber, design of bikes have also evolved drastically, particularly in the downhill and full-suspension mtb realms.
How am I wrong? Carbon fiber allowing for different designs does not mean that it is a design change. It is a materials change (You know, what the bike is made out of).
Originally posted by: Safeway
Originally posted by: Homerboy
Originally posted by: Beanie46
Originally posted by: Gibson486
yes they are. $600 bikes usually have $200-250 worth of profit.
No they don't. Ever sold bicycles? Ever bought them wholesale from, say Trek or anyone else?
Thought not.....
Markup on bicycles is incredibly low......top end bicycles, those in the high four figure range, do indeed have 20%-25% markups, but low end bicycles, those under $500 have markups in the 12%-15% range. A $600 bicycle will cost the shop like $500 or more, before shipping costs. Those $250 cheapie bikes in the shop will have wholesale prices of like $150-$175, before shipping, and the shop pays for shipping, always.
(How do I know? Husband worked/was manager of a bicycle shop for approx. 7 years....sold Trek, Lightspeed, Gary Fisher, Klein, Cannondale, Schwinn, Giant, among other brands.)
Ding! Winner.
I worked in a bike store for 8+ years.
My best friend's family has owned the store for 50+ years. As Beanie said, mark ups (on the low bikes) are incredible low percentage wise. Even on the high-end stuff, thew markups are a tad higher but RARELY do you sell the bikes for their list price anyways. Those ALWAYS are negotiable.
Not what I have heard/experienced. The high end bikes often have a 50% mark-up. The low end bikes are less profitable individually, but a store will move more of them.
Originally posted by: Cogman
Originally posted by: Homerboy
Originally posted by: Cogman
Originally posted by: rdubbz420
Originally posted by: Cogman
Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
Originally posted by: Cogman
Originally posted by: edro
You underestimate the costs involved in engineering and fabricating a high end piece of equipment.
Me thinks you overestimate said costs. Its a bike, the biggest changes to them have come in the form of materials engineering. The designs have essentially remained the same for the last 20 years.
No, they haven't. Carbon Fiber, Full-Suspension mtb designs have evolved immensely over the last ten years.
Carbon Fiber used to be an unreliable, poorly executed design on bikes and is now being used almost exclusively by riders in the Tour de France.
Also note, high end components/bikes are almost all hand-made, adding a lot to the cost.
Carbon Fiber is not a design change, it is a materials change. The only "new" design element to bikes in the past 20 years is suspension. Doesn't leave a whole lot of work for engineers.
Bicycle geometry has changed. Bike now typically have shorter wheel bases, sloping top tubes and are more aerodynamic among many other things.
A more aerodynamic bicycle? The bike has such a minimal cross-section that making it more aerodynamic is akin to bicyclists shaving their legs. The rider is where the most drag is found. (hence the spandex bicycling uniforms.)
Geometry has changed, but not enough to justify huge bike prices. It has been a gradual enough process that I doubt a huge amount of developmental effort has been put into it.
meanwhile I watch the ITT in the Tour de France and they are riding aerodynamic wonders.
Edit: you don know the main reason why they shave their legs right? Hint: its not for "aerodynamics"
Yes, and I watch the Olympics and see them using super aerodynamic nasa designed suits. Your point being? Of course someone who cares about speed is going to get the best bike available. Does that mean that the more aerodynamic bike helped them? Nope, at most it shaved off 1-2 seconds from their journey.
As for the shaved legs comment, I actually didn't know they shaved their legs, I was trying to use that as an example of what track runners will do for speed.
Originally posted by: Cogman
Originally posted by: Homerboy
Originally posted by: Cogman
Originally posted by: rdubbz420
Originally posted by: Cogman
Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
Originally posted by: Cogman
Originally posted by: edro
You underestimate the costs involved in engineering and fabricating a high end piece of equipment.
Me thinks you overestimate said costs. Its a bike, the biggest changes to them have come in the form of materials engineering. The designs have essentially remained the same for the last 20 years.
No, they haven't. Carbon Fiber, Full-Suspension mtb designs have evolved immensely over the last ten years.
Carbon Fiber used to be an unreliable, poorly executed design on bikes and is now being used almost exclusively by riders in the Tour de France.
Also note, high end components/bikes are almost all hand-made, adding a lot to the cost.
Carbon Fiber is not a design change, it is a materials change. The only "new" design element to bikes in the past 20 years is suspension. Doesn't leave a whole lot of work for engineers.
Bicycle geometry has changed. Bike now typically have shorter wheel bases, sloping top tubes and are more aerodynamic among many other things.
A more aerodynamic bicycle? The bike has such a minimal cross-section that making it more aerodynamic is akin to bicyclists shaving their legs. The rider is where the most drag is found. (hence the spandex bicycling uniforms.)
Geometry has changed, but not enough to justify huge bike prices. It has been a gradual enough process that I doubt a huge amount of developmental effort has been put into it.
meanwhile I watch the ITT in the Tour de France and they are riding aerodynamic wonders.
Edit: you don know the main reason why they shave their legs right? Hint: its not for "aerodynamics"
Yes, and I watch the Olympics and see them using super aerodynamic nasa designed suits. Your point being? Of course someone who cares about speed is going to get the best bike available. Does that mean that the more aerodynamic bike helped them? Nope, at most it shaved off 1-2 seconds from their journey.
As for the shaved legs comment, I actually didn't know they shaved their legs, I was trying to use that as an example of what track runners will do for speed.
Originally posted by: Homerboy
Originally posted by: Cogman
Originally posted by: Homerboy
Originally posted by: Cogman
Originally posted by: rdubbz420
Originally posted by: Cogman
Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
Originally posted by: Cogman
Originally posted by: edro
You underestimate the costs involved in engineering and fabricating a high end piece of equipment.
Me thinks you overestimate said costs. Its a bike, the biggest changes to them have come in the form of materials engineering. The designs have essentially remained the same for the last 20 years.
No, they haven't. Carbon Fiber, Full-Suspension mtb designs have evolved immensely over the last ten years.
Carbon Fiber used to be an unreliable, poorly executed design on bikes and is now being used almost exclusively by riders in the Tour de France.
Also note, high end components/bikes are almost all hand-made, adding a lot to the cost.
Carbon Fiber is not a design change, it is a materials change. The only "new" design element to bikes in the past 20 years is suspension. Doesn't leave a whole lot of work for engineers.
Bicycle geometry has changed. Bike now typically have shorter wheel bases, sloping top tubes and are more aerodynamic among many other things.
A more aerodynamic bicycle? The bike has such a minimal cross-section that making it more aerodynamic is akin to bicyclists shaving their legs. The rider is where the most drag is found. (hence the spandex bicycling uniforms.)
Geometry has changed, but not enough to justify huge bike prices. It has been a gradual enough process that I doubt a huge amount of developmental effort has been put into it.
meanwhile I watch the ITT in the Tour de France and they are riding aerodynamic wonders.
Edit: you don know the main reason why they shave their legs right? Hint: its not for "aerodynamics"
Yes, and I watch the Olympics and see them using super aerodynamic nasa designed suits. Your point being? Of course someone who cares about speed is going to get the best bike available. Does that mean that the more aerodynamic bike helped them? Nope, at most it shaved off 1-2 seconds from their journey.
As for the shaved legs comment, I actually didn't know they shaved their legs, I was trying to use that as an example of what track runners will do for speed.
1-2 secs? are you serious? They are going 50mpg in TT and downhills. Stick your hand outside your window of your car and feel the drag that produces while in dif positions. My 8yr old can see the difference.
Originally posted by: Homerboy
Yes, and I watch the Olympics and see them using super aerodynamic nasa designed suits. Your point being? Of course someone who cares about speed is going to get the best bike available. Does that mean that the more aerodynamic bike helped them? Nope, at most it shaved off 1-2 seconds from their journey.
As for the shaved legs comment, I actually didn't know they shaved their legs, I was trying to use that as an example of what track runners will do for speed.
He really does need to just STFU now.Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
Please stop. This is not a design change? or This?
The material allows one to make design changes based on the fact that carbon fiber can be molded into almost any shape while keeping the same properties.
Originally posted by: Cogman
Dude, Cross sectional area. It ain't that big. with rounded tubes the bike is already achieving a high level of aerodynamics, and those have been around forever. Saying that the designs are night and day in aerodynamics is dumb, they aren't. The level of change is small enough to be a statistical anomaly. If bicyclists want speed, then the bike rider is where they need to focus their aerodynamic research.
Originally posted by: Cogman
Originally posted by: Homerboy
Originally posted by: Homerboy
Originally posted by: Cogman
Originally posted by: Homerboy
Originally posted by: Cogman
Originally posted by: rdubbz420
Originally posted by: Cogman
Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
Originally posted by: Cogman
Originally posted by: edro
You underestimate the costs involved in engineering and fabricating a high end piece of equipment.
Me thinks you overestimate said costs. Its a bike, the biggest changes to them have come in the form of materials engineering. The designs have essentially remained the same for the last 20 years.
No, they haven't. Carbon Fiber, Full-Suspension mtb designs have evolved immensely over the last ten years.
Carbon Fiber used to be an unreliable, poorly executed design on bikes and is now being used almost exclusively by riders in the Tour de France.
Also note, high end components/bikes are almost all hand-made, adding a lot to the cost.
Carbon Fiber is not a design change, it is a materials change. The only "new" design element to bikes in the past 20 years is suspension. Doesn't leave a whole lot of work for engineers.
Bicycle geometry has changed. Bike now typically have shorter wheel bases, sloping top tubes and are more aerodynamic among many other things.
A more aerodynamic bicycle? The bike has such a minimal cross-section that making it more aerodynamic is akin to bicyclists shaving their legs. The rider is where the most drag is found. (hence the spandex bicycling uniforms.)
Geometry has changed, but not enough to justify huge bike prices. It has been a gradual enough process that I doubt a huge amount of developmental effort has been put into it.
meanwhile I watch the ITT in the Tour de France and they are riding aerodynamic wonders.
Edit: you don know the main reason why they shave their legs right? Hint: its not for "aerodynamics"
Yes, and I watch the Olympics and see them using super aerodynamic nasa designed suits. Your point being? Of course someone who cares about speed is going to get the best bike available. Does that mean that the more aerodynamic bike helped them? Nope, at most it shaved off 1-2 seconds from their journey.
As for the shaved legs comment, I actually didn't know they shaved their legs, I was trying to use that as an example of what track runners will do for speed.
1-2 secs? are you serious? They are going 50mpg in TT and downhills. Stick your hand outside your window of your car and feel the drag that produces while in dif positions. My 8yr old can see the difference.
Dude, Cross sectional area. It ain't that big. with rounded tubes the bike is already achieving a high level of aerodynamics, and those have been around forever. Saying that the designs are night and day in aerodynamics is dumb, they aren't. The level of change is small enough to be a statistical anomaly. If bicyclists want speed, then the bike rider is where they need to focus their aerodynamic research.
Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
Originally posted by: Cogman
Dude, Cross sectional area. It ain't that big. with rounded tubes the bike is already achieving a high level of aerodynamics, and those have been around forever. Saying that the designs are night and day in aerodynamics is dumb, they aren't. The level of change is small enough to be a statistical anomaly. If bicyclists want speed, then the bike rider is where they need to focus their aerodynamic research.
No, they focus on all areas to shave time, even a second. No different than the special swimsuits worn in this year's Olympics.
Originally posted by: Cogman
Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
Originally posted by: Cogman
Dude, Cross sectional area. It ain't that big. with rounded tubes the bike is already achieving a high level of aerodynamics, and those have been around forever. Saying that the designs are night and day in aerodynamics is dumb, they aren't. The level of change is small enough to be a statistical anomaly. If bicyclists want speed, then the bike rider is where they need to focus their aerodynamic research.
No, they focus on all areas to shave time, even a second. No different than the special swimsuits worn in this year's Olympics.
Kind of my point there. Pointing out the biggest professionals out there and saying "They do it, it must be big" is retarded. To the average bike user, aerodynamics means squat. Until they get to the level of dawning skintight spandex, having a super aerodynamic bike will make no difference to them.
Originally posted by: kalrith
Bicycle prices have skyrocketed over the past few years. If you compare the price of a top-of-the-line Trek mountain bike today to what the price of a top-of-the-line Trek mountain bike was 4 years ago, it's about double. My mountain bike was $600 in 1995, and I've put about $1,000 more into it (shock; clipless pedals; nice wheels; and most-recently having to replace the brakes, brake levers, and shifters). I'd say it's been well worth the money, but I wouldn't say the same thing about a lot of the high-end bikes today.
Originally posted by: Safeway
And cogman, hiding the front and rear brakes in the frame shaved off multiple seconds. That is just one change. Add in the aero tubing, the modified riding position, the aero wheels ... can make up a minute with the right bike.
Originally posted by: Cogman
Originally posted by: Safeway
And cogman, hiding the front and rear brakes in the frame shaved off multiple seconds. That is just one change. Add in the aero tubing, the modified riding position, the aero wheels ... can make up a minute with the right bike.
Show me the stats to back up the claim. Was it multiple seconds for the same rider? did the rider put in EXACTALLY the same amount of energy. And could the multiple seconds be explained by the fact that human athletes tend to get better over time. (For the brakes and aero tubing).
A modified riding position WILL result in a big change, there is no doubt about that, but thats about it. Aero wheels would be in the second place, the rest of the stuff you listed will make imperceptible differences in air resistance.
Originally posted by: Cogman
Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
Originally posted by: Cogman
Dude, Cross sectional area. It ain't that big. with rounded tubes the bike is already achieving a high level of aerodynamics, and those have been around forever. Saying that the designs are night and day in aerodynamics is dumb, they aren't. The level of change is small enough to be a statistical anomaly. If bicyclists want speed, then the bike rider is where they need to focus their aerodynamic research.
No, they focus on all areas to shave time, even a second. No different than the special swimsuits worn in this year's Olympics.
Kind of my point there. Pointing out the biggest professionals out there and saying "They do it, it must be big" is retarded. To the average bike user, aerodynamics means squat. Until they get to the level of dawning skintight spandex, having a super aerodynamic bike will make no difference to them.
Originally posted by: Safeway
Originally posted by: Cogman
Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
Originally posted by: Cogman
Dude, Cross sectional area. It ain't that big. with rounded tubes the bike is already achieving a high level of aerodynamics, and those have been around forever. Saying that the designs are night and day in aerodynamics is dumb, they aren't. The level of change is small enough to be a statistical anomaly. If bicyclists want speed, then the bike rider is where they need to focus their aerodynamic research.
No, they focus on all areas to shave time, even a second. No different than the special swimsuits worn in this year's Olympics.
Kind of my point there. Pointing out the biggest professionals out there and saying "They do it, it must be big" is retarded. To the average bike user, aerodynamics means squat. Until they get to the level of dawning skintight spandex, having a super aerodynamic bike will make no difference to them.
The super tight LYCRA is more for being comfortable on the saddle, less about aerodynamics.
And to the average biker, aerodynamics of the bike itself are negligible.
Originally posted by: Safeway
Originally posted by: Cogman
Originally posted by: Safeway
And cogman, hiding the front and rear brakes in the frame shaved off multiple seconds. That is just one change. Add in the aero tubing, the modified riding position, the aero wheels ... can make up a minute with the right bike.
Show me the stats to back up the claim. Was it multiple seconds for the same rider? did the rider put in EXACTALLY the same amount of energy. And could the multiple seconds be explained by the fact that human athletes tend to get better over time. (For the brakes and aero tubing).
A modified riding position WILL result in a big change, there is no doubt about that, but thats about it. Aero wheels would be in the second place, the rest of the stuff you listed will make imperceptible differences in air resistance.
If you doubt the numbers, look them up.
"At 30 mph, aero bikes have almost 1lb less drag than standard road bicycles, giving them an enormous advantage in time trial."
p.33 High-Tech cycling second edition Edmund R. Burke, Phd. Editor