Component testing

"bicycle_disciple" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

You know, I was wondering how these days all these so called top level
component companies make such enticing promises that their stuff is the
best in the market, and every company tells the same thing in its
catalogues. Who are we to believe. Where are the laboratory strength of
materials tests to back this up? At times, they come up with all these
numbers but you tend to wonder how they arrived at such conclusions. I
know a few years back, a couple of professionals from
bikesportmichgan.com did a sweet little test on three different
cranksets to test deflection/weight ratios. For those who still haven't
discovered this, go here for ref:

http://www.bikesportmichigan.com/reviews/crank.shtml

But this was years back. How I wish there were more groups of people
like this unaffiliated to any particular company to test and give us
numbers! I don't even mind paying for such a service, if that means
everything is available online and is just a click away. I mean, it
influences your decision a lot. No more are you just confused about all
the things out there, what is good, what is not! This is why I always
keep saying that things that are cheaper than others necessarily do not
mean that they perform poorly under test conditions.

Another thing that got me a little upset. Why can't shimano be a little
more consistent and give us weight data for all components,
particularly cranksets? I mean, do those guys assume that we're only
interested in Dura Ace? This is particularly disturbing when there are
so many models out there, so many different suppliers, and you're
looking for one tiny technical peice of information, and you go nuts
trying to find out about it.

Or should I just get one of those big-ass componentry catalogues that
bikes shops often have on their shelves?

-B.D

Well in my opinion, everything nowadays has a marketing advantage. Telling
others how much your stuff really weighs may put you at a disadvantage
later.
Quality control and warranties with lower end items is ship it and if it is
broike replace it.Maybe on higher end items there is some effort as to
quaility control but it is not looking good anymore. I think the norm today
is to skip the quality control and leave it to the customer to return it if
it doesn't work.

Evertyone claims theirs is the best, it is all marketing hype. But the thing
I do notice is the Shimano seems to be going to non-user servicable
components and that you need lots of special tools and special procedures to
do everything, forcing you to use the LBS more and more. Whereas Campognolo
seems to lean more towards user servicable without using lots of special
tools or procedures, so I am likely to be going Campy in the future.

Any one method for testing something seems to have lots of flaws or doesn't
test as well as someone else says it should, so it leaves all the tests
subject to lots of debate as to its merits. A good example is the Cervelo
Frame pothole test commercials during the 2006 TDF. I thought it was a good
example of why you don't buy ultra-light racing bikes and use them for
everyday rides. But what do I know, I can't afford frames that cost
$10,000.00 US, and if I did I would want a frame that would last 10-20 years
too, not for a single race.

Last Christmas LOOK had their 2006 product CD in a Velonews magazine
edition. When I watched the video on the CD, I was very impressed with their
frame testing machines and methods. It was absoultely amazing, I never knew
you could get carbon fibre frames to flex like they did on their frame
testing machines.

The last noticeable trend is the normal people can pretty much get all the
same ultra-lightweight racing stuff that the pros use, but all this
ultra-light weight stuff isn't intended to last very long. So normal people
are in trouble unless they can afford several wheel sets, and several spare
bikes and a support crew to follow along with them on every ride.
But I am sure the bike companies are all more than happy to sell expensive
short life span components to people, as there is a huge money maker in
there someplace.

"bicycle_disciple" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

You know, I was wondering how these days all these so called top level
component companies make such enticing promises that their stuff is the
best in the market, and every company tells the same thing in its
catalogues. Who are we to believe. Where are the laboratory strength of
materials tests to back this up? At times, they come up with all these
numbers but you tend to wonder how they arrived at such conclusions. I
know a few years back, a couple of professionals from
bikesportmichgan.com did a sweet little test on three different
cranksets to test deflection/weight ratios. For those who still haven't
discovered this, go here for ref:

http://www.bikesportmichigan.com/reviews/crank.shtml

But this was years back. How I wish there were more groups of people
like this unaffiliated to any particular company to test and give us
numbers! I don't even mind paying for such a service, if that means
everything is available online and is just a click away. I mean, it
influences your decision a lot. No more are you just confused about all
the things out there, what is good, what is not! This is why I always
keep saying that things that are cheaper than others necessarily do not
mean that they perform poorly under test conditions.

Another thing that got me a little upset. Why can't shimano be a little
more consistent and give us weight data for all components,
particularly cranksets? I mean, do those guys assume that we're only
interested in Dura Ace? This is particularly disturbing when there are
so many models out there, so many different suppliers, and you're
looking for one tiny technical peice of information, and you go nuts
trying to find out about it.

Or should I just get one of those big-ass componentry catalogues that
bikes shops often have on their shelves?

-B.D

Well in my opinion, everything nowadays has a marketing advantage. Telling
others how much your stuff really weighs may put you at a disadvantage
later.
Quality control and warranties with lower end items is ship it and if it is
broike replace it.Maybe on higher end items there is some effort as to
quaility control but it is not looking good anymore. I think the norm today
is to skip the quality control and leave it to the customer to return it if
it doesn't work.

Evertyone claims theirs is the best, it is all marketing hype. But the thing
I do notice is the Shimano seems to be going to non-user servicable
components and that you need lots of special tools and special procedures to
do everything, forcing you to use the LBS more and more. Whereas Campognolo
seems to lean more towards user servicable without using lots of special
tools or procedures, so I am likely to be going Campy in the future.

Any one method for testing something seems to have lots of flaws or doesn't
test as well as someone else says it should, so it leaves all the tests
subject to lots of debate as to its merits. A good example is the Cervelo
Frame pothole test commercials during the 2006 TDF. I thought it was a good
example of why you don't buy ultra-light racing bikes and use them for
everyday rides. But what do I know, I can't afford frames that cost
$10,000.00 US, and if I did I would want a frame that would last 10-20 years
too, not for a single race.

Last Christmas LOOK had their 2006 product CD in a Velonews magazine
edition. When I watched the video on the CD, I was very impressed with their
frame testing machines and methods. It was absoultely amazing, I never knew
you could get carbon fibre frames to flex like they did on their frame
testing machines.

The last noticeable trend is the normal people can pretty much get all the
same ultra-lightweight racing stuff that the pros use, but all this
ultra-light weight stuff isn't intended to last very long. So normal people
are in trouble unless they can afford several wheel sets, and several spare
bikes and a support crew to follow along with them on every ride.
But I am sure the bike companies are all more than happy to sell expensive
short life span components to people, as there is a huge money maker in
there someplace.

"Earl Bollinger" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"bicycle_disciple" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

You know, I was wondering how these days all these so called top level
component companies make such enticing promises that their stuff is the
best in the market, and every company tells the same thing in its
catalogues. Who are we to believe. Where are the laboratory strength of
materials tests to back this up? At times, they come up with all these
numbers but you tend to wonder how they arrived at such conclusions. I
know a few years back, a couple of professionals from
bikesportmichgan.com did a sweet little test on three different
cranksets to test deflection/weight ratios. For those who still haven't
discovered this, go here for ref:

http://www.bikesportmichigan.com/reviews/crank.shtml

But this was years back. How I wish there were more groups of people
like this unaffiliated to any particular company to test and give us
numbers! I don't even mind paying for such a service, if that means
everything is available online and is just a click away. I mean, it
influences your decision a lot. No more are you just confused about all
the things out there, what is good, what is not! This is why I always
keep saying that things that are cheaper than others necessarily do not
mean that they perform poorly under test conditions.

Another thing that got me a little upset. Why can't shimano be a little
more consistent and give us weight data for all components,
particularly cranksets? I mean, do those guys assume that we're only
interested in Dura Ace? This is particularly disturbing when there are
so many models out there, so many different suppliers, and you're
looking for one tiny technical peice of information, and you go nuts
trying to find out about it.

Or should I just get one of those big-ass componentry catalogues that
bikes shops often have on their shelves?

-B.D

Well in my opinion, everything nowadays has a marketing advantage. Telling
others how much your stuff really weighs may put you at a disadvantage
later.
Quality control and warranties with lower end items is ship it and if it
is broike replace it.Maybe on higher end items there is some effort as to
quaility control but it is not looking good anymore. I think the norm
today is to skip the quality control and leave it to the customer to
return it if it doesn't work.

Evertyone claims theirs is the best, it is all marketing hype. But the
thing I do notice is the Shimano seems to be going to non-user servicable
components and that you need lots of special tools and special procedures
to do everything, forcing you to use the LBS more and more. Whereas
Campognolo seems to lean more towards user servicable without using lots
of special tools or procedures, so I am likely to be going Campy in the
future.

Any one method for testing something seems to have lots of flaws or
doesn't test as well as someone else says it should, so it leaves all the
tests subject to lots of debate as to its merits. A good example is the
Cervelo Frame pothole test commercials during the 2006 TDF. I thought it
was a good example of why you don't buy ultra-light racing bikes and use
them for everyday rides. But what do I know, I can't afford frames that
cost $10,000.00 US, and if I did I would want a frame that would last
10-20 years too, not for a single race.

Last Christmas LOOK had their 2006 product CD in a Velonews magazine
edition. When I watched the video on the CD, I was very impressed with
their frame testing machines and methods. It was absoultely amazing, I
never knew you could get carbon fibre frames to flex like they did on
their frame testing machines.

The last noticeable trend is the normal people can pretty much get all the
same ultra-lightweight racing stuff that the pros use, but all this
ultra-light weight stuff isn't intended to last very long. So normal
people are in trouble unless they can afford several wheel sets, and
several spare bikes and a support crew to follow along with them on every
ride.
But I am sure the bike companies are all more than happy to sell expensive
short life span components to people, as there is a huge money maker in
there someplace.

I got to thinking about it and to me and I would really want to know what
the flex would be with something more like what real people are doing.
But to me the test flaw is they only used a 124 pound weight for the
deflection test which is fine for testing and comparing a number of
different cranks to each other.
But for a more realistic test, I think the weight should have been a lot
higher.
For example if I weigh 153 pounds (Flyd Landis for example), then standing
up on the bike would apply a minimum of 153 pounds on the pedal. Plus if I
am powering and pumping at the same time, by pulling hard on the handlebars,
I could theoretically probably easily double that weight on the pedals or
crankarm.
But then what happens if you have a heavier rider, say a 180 pound or a 200
pound person for example? A fairly fit big 200 pound individual could
probably put upwards of 400 pounds or more pressure on a crankarm.
Thus now what is the flexing that is going on?
One other thought is the bottom bracket spindle would likely have some
deflection or twist in there too, I wonder if that was taken into account.
That would be a tricky thing to determine too.

Anyway that's my pondering early in the morning before my brain has really
started to get going.
Time for another cup of coffee.
Thanks for reading.

"Earl Bollinger" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"bicycle_disciple" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

You know, I was wondering how these days all these so called top level
component companies make such enticing promises that their stuff is the
best in the market, and every company tells the same thing in its
catalogues. Who are we to believe. Where are the laboratory strength of
materials tests to back this up? At times, they come up with all these
numbers but you tend to wonder how they arrived at such conclusions. I
know a few years back, a couple of professionals from
bikesportmichgan.com did a sweet little test on three different
cranksets to test deflection/weight ratios. For those who still haven't
discovered this, go here for ref:

http://www.bikesportmichigan.com/reviews/crank.shtml

But this was years back. How I wish there were more groups of people
like this unaffiliated to any particular company to test and give us
numbers! I don't even mind paying for such a service, if that means
everything is available online and is just a click away. I mean, it
influences your decision a lot. No more are you just confused about all
the things out there, what is good, what is not! This is why I always
keep saying that things that are cheaper than others necessarily do not
mean that they perform poorly under test conditions.

Another thing that got me a little upset. Why can't shimano be a little
more consistent and give us weight data for all components,
particularly cranksets? I mean, do those guys assume that we're only
interested in Dura Ace? This is particularly disturbing when there are
so many models out there, so many different suppliers, and you're
looking for one tiny technical peice of information, and you go nuts
trying to find out about it.

Or should I just get one of those big-ass componentry catalogues that
bikes shops often have on their shelves?

-B.D

Well in my opinion, everything nowadays has a marketing advantage. Telling
others how much your stuff really weighs may put you at a disadvantage
later.
Quality control and warranties with lower end items is ship it and if it
is broike replace it.Maybe on higher end items there is some effort as to
quaility control but it is not looking good anymore. I think the norm
today is to skip the quality control and leave it to the customer to
return it if it doesn't work.

Evertyone claims theirs is the best, it is all marketing hype. But the
thing I do notice is the Shimano seems to be going to non-user servicable
components and that you need lots of special tools and special procedures
to do everything, forcing you to use the LBS more and more. Whereas
Campognolo seems to lean more towards user servicable without using lots
of special tools or procedures, so I am likely to be going Campy in the
future.

Any one method for testing something seems to have lots of flaws or
doesn't test as well as someone else says it should, so it leaves all the
tests subject to lots of debate as to its merits. A good example is the
Cervelo Frame pothole test commercials during the 2006 TDF. I thought it
was a good example of why you don't buy ultra-light racing bikes and use
them for everyday rides. But what do I know, I can't afford frames that
cost $10,000.00 US, and if I did I would want a frame that would last
10-20 years too, not for a single race.

Last Christmas LOOK had their 2006 product CD in a Velonews magazine
edition. When I watched the video on the CD, I was very impressed with
their frame testing machines and methods. It was absoultely amazing, I
never knew you could get carbon fibre frames to flex like they did on
their frame testing machines.

The last noticeable trend is the normal people can pretty much get all the
same ultra-lightweight racing stuff that the pros use, but all this
ultra-light weight stuff isn't intended to last very long. So normal
people are in trouble unless they can afford several wheel sets, and
several spare bikes and a support crew to follow along with them on every
ride.
But I am sure the bike companies are all more than happy to sell expensive
short life span components to people, as there is a huge money maker in
there someplace.

I got to thinking about it and to me and I would really want to know what
the flex would be with something more like what real people are doing.
But to me the test flaw is they only used a 124 pound weight for the
deflection test which is fine for testing and comparing a number of
different cranks to each other.
But for a more realistic test, I think the weight should have been a lot
higher.
For example if I weigh 153 pounds (Flyd Landis for example), then standing
up on the bike would apply a minimum of 153 pounds on the pedal. Plus if I
am powering and pumping at the same time, by pulling hard on the handlebars,
I could theoretically probably easily double that weight on the pedals or
crankarm.
But then what happens if you have a heavier rider, say a 180 pound or a 200
pound person for example? A fairly fit big 200 pound individual could
probably put upwards of 400 pounds or more pressure on a crankarm.
Thus now what is the flexing that is going on?
One other thought is the bottom bracket spindle would likely have some
deflection or twist in there too, I wonder if that was taken into account.
That would be a tricky thing to determine too.

Anyway that's my pondering early in the morning before my brain has really
started to get going.
Time for another cup of coffee.
Thanks for reading.

bicycle_disciple said:

You know, I was wondering how these days all these so called top level
component companies make such enticing promises that their stuff is the
best in the market, and every company tells the same thing in its
catalogues. Who are we to believe. Where are the laboratory strength of
materials tests to back this up? At times, they come up with all these
numbers but you tend to wonder how they arrived at such conclusions. I
know a few years back, a couple of professionals from
bikesportmichgan.com did a sweet little test on three different
cranksets to test deflection/weight ratios. For those who still haven't
discovered this, go here for ref:

http://www.bikesportmichigan.com/reviews/crank.shtml

But this was years back. How I wish there were more groups of people
like this unaffiliated to any particular company to test and give us
numbers! I don't even mind paying for such a service, if that means
everything is available online and is just a click away. I mean, it
influences your decision a lot. No more are you just confused about all
the things out there, what is good, what is not! This is why I always
keep saying that things that are cheaper than others necessarily do not
mean that they perform poorly under test conditions.

But does any of this testing really make that much of a difference in
real life? Will you really notice any of this "deflection" that is
tested? The minimal difference in weight is definitely not noticeable.

Today, most people buy parts as a group of matched components. Its rare
that someone will buy an off-brand crankset. Maybe you might be willing
to buy a different crankset, but most wouldn't.

Unless you actually notice "flex" or "defection" in your crank, your
best bet is to stop reading all these test and get out and ride!

Quoted message said:

Another thing that got me a little upset. Why can't shimano be a little
more consistent and give us weight data for all components,
particularly cranksets? I mean, do those guys assume that we're only
interested in Dura Ace? This is particularly disturbing when there are
so many models out there, so many different suppliers, and you're
looking for one tiny technical peice of information, and you go nuts
trying to find out about it.

Or should I just get one of those big-ass componentry catalogues that
bikes shops often have on their shelves?

If you want to read catalogues, start with QBP. Don't know what it
costs, but I'm sure your LBS can sell you one.

As for Shimano, they do list weights for their DA and UItegra
component. Since you're focused on cranks, the new FC-6600 Ultegra 10
crankset/bb combo weighs in at 839g:

http://bike.shimano.com/catalog/cycle/products/component.jsp?PRODUCT%3C%3Eprd_id=845524441770447&FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=2534374302040146&ASSORTMENT%3C%3East_id=1408474395181419&bmUID=1154369625290

If you're looking at the lower lines like 105, Tiagra or Sora, then
weight probably isn't that big of a deal.

Quoted message said:

But this was years back. How I wish there were more groups of people
like this unaffiliated to any particular company to test and give us
numbers!

Only r.b.t-ers ignore the marketing hype. Everyone else will read the
magazines and online 'zines, which try oh-so-hard to be objective but they
know where their dollars come from.

The numbers will also be way over many peoples' heads. Everything is
condensed into sentences that start with, "What this means for you is..."

--
Phil Lee, Squid

Squid said:

Quoted message said:

But this was years back. How I wish there were more groups of people
like this unaffiliated to any particular company to test and give us
numbers!

Only r.b.t-ers ignore the marketing hype. Everyone else will read the
magazines and online 'zines, which try oh-so-hard to be objective but they
know where their dollars come from.

The numbers will also be way over many peoples' heads. Everything is
condensed into sentences that start with, "What this means for you is..."

Dear Phil,

Drat--I need a new monitor!

This one doesn't show the smiley after your first sentence.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel