Were these in any way a good idea? By the standards of the time, at least? And what about now?
>>941216
>seat angle
what clown shit is this
Absolutely
>>941216
The mass-produced models may have been of dubious advantage to the riders they were sold to, but the Y-foil shape does offer some aerodynamic advantage.
they were fucking awesome in 1998 and they're fucking awesome now.
Fuck the UCI.
The two big advantages that the design has is aero and comfort. The beam makes it so that you don't feel the lumps and bumps on the road with your ass as much as you do with a typical design, which is nice for long races. The rear triangle is crazy strong.
However, the bike was a little porky at over 10kg, which led to one of the most ebin breads on weightweenies: http://weightweenies.starbike.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=131739
>>941271
He actually got it down below the UCI limit, the absolute madman.
That's amazing.
>>941308
There's a bike on WW without any carbon fiber that's under the UCI limit. It's not that hard to get under the UCI limit.
>>941309
For sure! But it's a big reduction.
Was the bike Ti or Al or what?
>>941309
Yeah, but in the case of the Y-Foil, he had to make a bunch of modifications to the frame (the stock frame is not light) that involved custom garbon work, and he didn't have to resort to using SRAM Red or anything instead of Di2.
I bet that if Terk released a new Y-foil with that design made from OCLV 700, they'd sell a bunch of them, but probably not enough to justify the cost of development unless the UCI decides to stop being dicks about advancing the state of the art of frame design.
It's a shame that Madfiber got fucked by that shady venture capital firm. They were making neat wheels and were just getting underway.
>>941347
>expecting the UCI to ever get their eurotrash heads out of their own asses
I'd love to see cycling technology start tp advance again, but if we leave the sport in the hands of europoors it'll never happen unfortunately. When Trump wins we need to invade those weaklings again.
>>941347
SRAM Red is made out of carbon. How can you make a non-carbon bike with SRAM Red?
>the stock frame is not light
It's not that heavy when you consider there are WW bikes under 5kg.
>>941352
>>It's not that heavy when you consider there are WW bikes under 5kg.
what
the stock frame was easily double the weight of the modern superlights
>>941359
And that only accounts for about 1kg. There are lots of steel framed bikes on WW less than 6.8kg. If you can build a 6kg bike with a 1kg frame, you can build a 6.8kg bike with a 1.8kg frame.
>>941348
Suck it amsrimad son of bitch bastard
>>941347
Won't even allow disc brakes on road bikes what a fucking disgrace
Heh heh
Mang if I had one of these shits I'd strip and polish that sweet sweet alu so fucking hard
>>941421
> alu
>>941367
Pretty much this. The only real benefit with carbon is how easy it is to make geometric shapes or larger shapes. The problem is that the thickness of the material needed to put up with stresses such as biking will not yield much of a weight savings if any.
As a person who has three hand made steel framed race bikes + a full carbon race bike, I can confidently say that there really is no significant differences in weight savings. My only issue is that when a carbon frame fails, it can be downright dangerous to the rider.
>>941489
Doesn't getting steel frames to the super low weights require making them super whippy, though?
>>941491
If you have something like Columbus SLX (butted as fuck), the bigger the frame gets the looser it gets as well. If you're a manlet, thin tubes shouldn't be a problem. Over 60cm or along those lines you might want to start avoiding the thinnest of tubes.
>>941489
What are you talking about. There are carbon frames 1/3-1/3 of what steel frames weight. It's not at all insignificant. Just that a heavyish frame doesn't mean you can't sub UCI
>>941530
The guy who modded that Y-frame in the OP talked about a Scott carbon frame that came into his shop for repair because it cracked. He went on to say that while the frame was extremely light (around 800 grams) it was a floppy piece of shit because the material was too thin and he wouldn't trust it on a modest ride.
While creating a carbon frame that is absurdly light is possible, effectively there will be lose of durability, reliability and structural integrity.
You want reliability but light weight? Buy a production carbon frame and take a shit before you ride it.
>>941660
You have no idea what you're talking about.
The Scott was probably an old addict, which was pushing the limits for the technology back then. There are lots of stiff frames under 700g now.
Then there's superstitious people like you who don't understand weight, and don't realize you can be a weight weenie and shit before you ride. You should shit before you ride anyways because it's better to not have anything in your bowels when you ride, and theres no chance of needing to shit on the ride.
>>941668
>don't realize you can be a weight weenie and shit before you ride
Are there people out there who don't make a BM before a ride?
>>941660
>While creating a carbon frame that is absurdly light is possible, effectively there will be lose of durability, reliability and structural integrity.
As will there be making an "absurdly light" frame from any material.
Carbon fibre frame can be made just as strong as steel or aluminium but much lighter, or much stronger for the same weight. Not only is it a light material (in terms of its strength to weight ratio) it can also be used in much more complex construction, putting strength and flexibility where they are most desired and cutting weight wherever possible (think of it like butting tubes and the complex shapes possible with aluminium but much better).
I don't know why you're trying to argue against a well known fact, there's a reason why it's used in many high end applications where weight matters.
>>941678
The benefit of CFRP is that it typically has a *much* higher stiffness/density ratio than steel or aluminum, but it's strength/density ratio may only slightly better than metals.
>>941689
Why does it need to be dense? How does any of this make sense in your head?
It needs strength-to-weight and stiffness-to-weight, not density or low volume. You're not making ball bearings and axles out of it.
>>941695
Because he's a jackass trying to win an argument he already lost.
People should just learn when to admit they're wrong, and their opinions are based on tech from 20 years ago.
>>941216
The Aerodynamics aren't worth the extra fifty fucking pounds of weight.
>>941832
>trying this hard
>>941887
>Weight trumps aerodynamics
>>942014
He didn't say that retard, he clearly meant that the increase in aerodynamics isn't significant enough to compensate for the large increase in weight, and he's correct. Learn to read you goddamn stupid sonydrone faggot.
>>942058
>fifty pounds
>>941348
Time to make cycling great again?
>>942070
>what is a hyperbole
>>943082
An extreme exaggeration to make a point. The thing is his point is bollocks. The extra weight isn't that great and better aerodynamics can have a huge effect (no idea whether that particular frame is actually very good aerodynamically).
If we say it's like 1kg heavier than a decently light conventional carbon frame (I think it's something like 1.8kg, and the guy in that thread had a carbon Scott at around 800g) that's not much at all. It's going to make acceleration a little slower and climbing take a tad more effort but better aerodynamics could result in significantly faster speeds on the flat and downhill. Also that frame is supposedly much stiffer where it counts, wasting less energy when power output is high (accelerating and climbing).
>>943084
>no idea whether that particular frame is actually very good aerodynamically
>If we say it's like 1kg heavier
So you don't know the aero effects OR the weight of the bike, but you're arguing that the increase in weight is worth it for the aero gains? when you just assumed values for both things? wtf dude seriously
>>943359
>So you don't know the aero effects OR the weight of the bike, but you're arguing that the increase in weight is worth it for the aero gains?
I don't know the weight of the bike but I know roughly how much heavier the frame is, if all other components are kept equal then it's only 1kg heavier overall. Chances are it is aerodynamically better than a regular frame (at least head on), likely more than enough to make up for the little bit of extra weight.
I'm not saying it definitely is but it's certainly possible.
>>943360
>I don't know the weight of the bike
>Chances are it is aerodynamically better
Then wtf is the point of your argument? Like, why post if you straight up don't know and are just guessing? If you want to prove the other guy wrong then you need some actual figures, otherwise you don't have an argument, just a differing (and dumb) opinion.
>>943361
I'm saying it's possible, the other guy is saying it isn't yet isn't providing any proof either.
pleb
or true cyclo patrician?
>>943359
So you don't know the aero effects OR the weight of the bike, but you're arguing that the increase in weight is worse than the aero gains? when you just assumed values for both things? wtf dude seriously
>>941216
DESU those look like fun. I want to paint one to look like a giant fish.
>>944981
>or true cyclo patrician?
To my way of thinking those bars, with that lever setup, are upside down - the other way would make for sense for wrist comfort.
>>944981
>Levers parallel to the ground
Irredeemable pleb of the highest order.
>>944981
Wow, they sure must want that fucker stolen.
