Trek I have doubt used serious engineers to think hard about bicycle design and the Trek OCLV frame is particularly clever. However the improvements that are made are very small in relation to the performance of the rider which is still all important. And that makes the the sense of the current UCI retro rules even more stupid. Certainly in the last twenty years serious engineers have turned their thoughts once again to bicycle design (the relative decline of the aerospace sector has thrown out some excellent engineers who have have turned their talents to bicycles) though there are still many companies which are not much more than marketing operations. You only have to look at some of the full suspension mountain bikes to realise how much thought and research has gone into the design (and in in some cases little actual design work). The Cannondale Raven (the subject of an upcoming Design Classic is a technical tour de force even if the result is as little less effective than some other simpler solutions. Hilary Stone
Jerry Moos wrote:
> A very good summary of the subject, I think. It appears that you do not
> necessarily
> disagree with Richard Sach's comment that the purported advantages of some of
these
> designs, while they seem intuitively reasonable, might not withstand rigorous
> engineering analysis. I think it is a good point that relatively few
> engineers have
> worked in the bicycle business since the auto and aircraft industries became
large
> and important. While I, like several on the list, have engineering degrees,
mine
> are in chemical and electrical engineering and impart no particular insight
into
> bicycle design. Even mechanical or structural engineers probably don't have
much
> more insight, as most of the extensive tools, techniques and literature
accumulated
> in that field in the 20th century were focused, as you so aptly observed in
regards
> to manpower, on the much more economically important auto and aerospace
industries.
> I'll bet there aren't more than a handfull of engineers in the world who would
know
> where to begin to set up the engineering tests necessary to confirm or refute
the
> structural claims of the classic British "funny frames".
>
> If Trek public realtions pronouncements are to be believed, with all the
stories of
> using wind tunnels and advanced CAD to design the US Postal team bikes, we are
> seeing a renewal of the application of intensive engineering to bicycles,
though
> mostly to models far removed from the lugged steel ones of the past. Of
course, it
> bears remembering that past attempts at high-powered bicycle engineering, i.e.
> Lambert, Exxon Graftek, and Teledyne Titan, produced in each instance a
notably
> flawed product. Or, if Richard Sachs will forgive my plagiarizing his
company
> motto "Technology alone is a poor substitute for experience."
>
> Regards,
>
> Jerry Moos