Bike porn

It's a recent upload on this flickr account. It's a repost? The frame is magnificent, if you have a chance to get one you should!

Shame about the bars, but there's not really much else to fault.

Rainbows can fucking do one

It's a recent upload on this flickr account. It's a repost? The frame is magnificent, if you have a chance to get one you should!

no, not a repost, just saying
lovely bike and build indeed

Leo if he's still on here, has owned/built so much porn.

..while cleaning spam out of the blog site I found a comment from a forum member that was "critical" (my word) of the holes and no clue about the eccentric... Sorry I presumed it would like back to that post.. an indication of the little time i spend doing computer housekeeping duties.. ;~) The picture just posted is the frame in question..which, BTW set a women's Kilo record the first time it was used..
dave

I don't believe your theory about the holes uless you can show FEA work on the strength difference.

Also, I don't think any benefits would be enough to counteract the additional drag and ugliness.

BTW set a women's Kilo record the first time it was used

In spite of the frame, not because of it.

well it's got too many colours for a start...

this.

In spite of the frame, not because of it.

You're just pissed the designer managed to make more holes in that frame than you do in most of the others posted on here.

I don't believe your theory about the holes uless you can show FEA work on the strength difference.

Also, I don't think any benefits would be enough to counteract the additional drag and ugliness.

Lost it a bit at the end, but nice attempt at being taken seriously.

:)

Look.. my frames hold over 150 US National records some over 20 years old.. including the world 100K and the US 40K TT record. All using different genders and riders. So,
you can piss on my theory all you like. The proof is in the pudding boys. I will tell you that I did quite a lot of wind tunnel testing, and I don't need a computer model or machine to tell me a frame is stiffer.
dave

I don't need a computer model or machine to tell me a frame is stiffer.
dave

You can't HANDLE the truth!

Churchgoer much? Won't believe anything unless it fits in with what you want to believe?

Your impression of stiffness will be biassed by the knowlege of the frame you're feeling.

Look.. my frames hold over 150 US National records some over 20 years old.. including the world 100K and the US 40K TT record. All using different genders and riders. So,
you can piss on my theory all you like. The proof is in the pudding boys. I will tell you that I did quite a lot of wind tunnel testing, and I don't need a computer model or machine to tell me a frame is stiffer.
dave

Well done! As the first positive post, do I get a custom free frame?

Dave

chill out, this crowd has big mouths but also big hearts, take things with a pinch of salt, think for yourself "what this guys will know of making bikes", and don't portrait yourself as a little boy through out your toys, there is nothing more pointless than an argument in the internet.

just my 2p

over 150 US National records

There are not 150 different records in cycling unless you count age group records, which don't mean shit.

National records don't mean shit, especially as US riders have done nothing much on the world stage in timed events since god knows when.

Frames have very little bearing on total man/machine performance, as anybody who saw Rominger's hour record bike will quickly guess. Round steel tubes are good enough if either the athlete is very good or the record he sets out to beat is of a low standard (e.g. a National age group record in a country with no decent riders...)

So, well done you for getting some half decent old codgers onto your frames to have a crack at some soft records, but don't expect us to believe that your designs or building skill had anything to do with the performance, beyond being 'adequate', something a million OTP Giants manage every couple of months.

mdcc_tester is neither a computer model or a machine (as far as I know) and he will tell you whatever the hell he wants and you won't be able to prove him wrong because he uses science. Accept this fact and you might enjoy your stay on this forum. Try to fight it and you will lose, no matter how right you may be.

The eccentric is not for chain tension, but rather to adjust the seat angle for different riders.

Funny, I thought that was what saddle rails that could be slid back and forth on the seat post were for.

don't those nifty kalavinkas have eccentric bbs for a similar given reason? or was that for something else?

e:

these ones

I suppose changing the saddle placing would mean having to change the stem length

Dave, your stated records sound impressive, and you've obviously put a lot of thought into what you do. I'm a non competitive cyclist, like many on this forum, and because the frame that was referenced looks like it's been clamped and drilled so that there is debris on the frame and that the holes aren't perfectly aligned it looks a little homemade. It's not the finish you would normally see on a record breaking bike! I'm all for Mr. Obree and backing the underdog or smaller manufacturer but your frame looks like it's had the shit drilled out of it in a shed, and I'm sure that's where much of the criticism that you've been subject to here comes from.

don't those nifty kalavinkas have eccentric bbs for a similar given reason? or was that for something else?

Flipping the eccentric over to change the BB drop might be useful (although it has never been fully explained to me how 20mm difference is supposed to favour sprinters over endurance riders). Moving the BB back and forth as a substitute for moving the saddle and making the corresponding adjustment to stem length seems like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

40K TT 47:35 John Frey
100K 2:09: 11 kent Bostick (20 minutes faster than Ritter's pro time!
49+K Hour - outdoors-lousy/cold conditions

The holes are deliberately angled. What it looks like, i.e.Obrey sp?, is not the point is it?
Fellows, my skin is thick and you can think what you want. I've been at this for over 40 years and as one of you noted I might as well talk to a wall. Nevertheless I'll try to enlighten those hardheaded and clearly [sic] much brighter than me...
dave

What I don't like is the lip on the outside of the holes. Looks as if the excess wasn't ground off properly. If there is reasoning behind this then please explain.

Clarify this: why don't industry giants like Giant, Trek, Specialized etc drill holes into their frames? Is it because they haven't spent as much time in wind tunnels as you have? Is it because they're dumb like us, and not bright like you? Or is it because it's a stupid idea?