Different materials have specific, consistent, quantifiable abilities to damp vibrations. I'm sure there's someone on here who can point to a link with that info. However, the ability of the rider to distinguish these sometimes extremely subtle differences can be debated. IMO it's fairly easy to tell Carbon and Steel are better than Aluminum at this. It's particularly difficult to distinguish which type of Aluminum is best and whether Carbon or Steel provides a more comfortable ride.

It seems like most of the things manufacturers claim is just hype to try and get us excited about the new model they have out this season.

 

Tubes come in all shape and sizes. You can make any material ride how you'd like - some steel bikes will be soft and smooth while others will provide a super stiff non-compliant ride. Materials matter less than a good designed based on the material.

If you're looking bump absorption info there are two truths:

- full suspension frames absorbs more bumps than a hardtails
- lower air pressure in the tires will absorb more bumps on any bike

 

Yep laffeaux nailed it. Nowadays custom builders can make just about identical feel hardtail from different materials.

Seriously, scientific testing or evaluation are just about the same bunch of words as marketing jargon because it only prove right when the tube and/or material are at the same size and shape which it's not always the case. We pass the point of comparing a stiff oversize alu tube with the skinny steel tube already.:thumbsup:

 

The places I notice it the most are bars and seat posts. Particularly bars. Go from a set of stiff aluminum bars to a set of carbon bars and you can really feel the difference in shock transfer to your hands. Ti is kind of springy so it's second best and people say that steel is too but I haven't riding enough steel to know. Some builders profess to engineering AL tubes that feel more like steel but again idk.

The bottom line is that ultimately carbon is king and can be made to do anything you want it to and is the best at absorbing high frequency vibration.

 

In other words, no, there aren't available any scientific studies of these frame materials and their vibration absorption. At least none that anyone knows of. There are however, plenty of empty platitudes, such as:

"Full suspension absorbs more bumps than a hardtail" and "Lower air pressure helps absorb bumps."

Really? Holy Sh*t! All this time I've been riding my rigid road bike on the trails at 120 psi!

Tubes come in all shape and sizes. You can make any material ride how you'd like - some steel bikes will be soft and smooth while others will provide a super stiff non-compliant ride. Materials matter less than a good designed based on the material.

I'm not talking about what the best frame design is, that discussion would go nowhere. Obviously frame design is very important. So is tire pressure, suspension, etc, etc, etc, etc. But all things being equal, you CAN scientifically measure these things if the samples are all the same size and shape. Just take a same size/shape sample tube of each material and test it in all different ways.

The bottom line is that ultimately carbon is king and can be made to do anything you want it to and is the best at absorbing high frequency vibration.

Plenty of titanium and steel frame builders out there would disagree I think. It would be nice to know which material really is the best. With this established, you can focus on other variables.

 

In other words, no, there aren't available any scientific studies of these frame materials and their vibration absorption. At least none that anyone knows of. There are however, plenty of empty platitudes, such as:

Yes it is out there. I've seen it. But I don't feel like looking it up for you.

What I saw wasn't bike specific as I remember but then again it could have been bike related.

Metallurgical charts comparing shock absorption and shock transfer rates of different materials.

 

Once again someone that asks a question, blows off the responses, and then asks for more.

A quick interweb search will yield endless data about specific materials. Read up and get back to us.

 

Once again someone that asks a question, blows off the responces, and then asks for more.

A quick interweb search will yeild endless data about specific materials. Read up and get back to us.

If the previous responses answered my question, there would be no need for research, would there?

I don't have my mind made up, I am admittedly ignorant on this subject. I have heard bike makers clam that just about every type of material is superior to others at vibration absorption. It would be nice to know if there really was an established hierarchy among the common frame materials.

 

Sounds like you have your mind made up. However, design trumps material.

Also, exposed seatpost has a lot to do with reducing chatter. In that regard, a ti or carbon setback post with plenty exposed does a lot for bumps. My old 17 inch steel hardrock with about a foot of seatpost felt smooth on the trails.

 

Hang it like a bell then ring the frame. Measure freq and amplitude. Ride frame. Look for correlation.

I feel seat stays like the curved Blue Pigs probably will do more than anything for smoothing the ride. Anybody got one? Do tell...

 

I use the HT alloy frame but till now I cannot feel its absorption against the bumps. How do we notice the HT rear end flexibility?

 

If you had frames made with identical geometry out of the various materials, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference in vibration damping ability, if they were all built with identical components, and setup the same. The differences would come mostly from the engineering of the frame, not the material its made from. The most noticeable differences you could feel are, bottom bracket deflection, and weight. I have a vintage Fisher ProCaliber steel frame bike and a new carbon fiber ht, and they have an equal amount of vibration damping, when measured with seat-of-the-pants. The biggest noticeable difference I can feel is the bb deflection is much greater with the small tube, steel frame. Vibration damping ability is a poor measure of how to judge one frame to another.

That being said, the very nature of how a carbon bike frame is made compared to metal tube construction, gives the carbon frame more vibration damping ability. You are comparing layers of woven fabric to a metal tube. The end result is still not really noticeable, and more an effect of component selection and setup.

 

Materials like titanium and steel have a much higher yield strength than aluminum. They can undergo much more elastic deformation (deform, bend, compress, etc and then return to original size and shape). Aluminum has a lower yield strength, so it is more challenging for a frame builder to design the frame to absorb shock as the aluminum is more likely to bend or crack.

Carbon fiber is interesting because the material itself doesn't matter as much as the fiber layup. Its just woven fibers mixed with resin.

But really it comes down to the frame design itself. A crappy designed Ti frame could transmit more vibration than a very well designed aluminum frame.

 

I love this discussion. There is no "data" because no one wants you to know that it makes little difference between all these materials. It is the same reason there is no "data" on 29ers vs 26ers that proves some huge advantage to 29ers. If all this stuff really made a difference there would be all sorts of charts and graphs out there extolling the virtues of whatever new cheaper technology the manufacturers wanted to sell us.

The forces acting on a mountain bike are so small! They are cushioned by our bodies own flexibility, and low pressure air the tires. Only relatively large-frequency and large amplitude "vibrations" are transmitted to the rider. And that is what full suspension is for. Go ride a road bike with 100psi tires. You can feel EVERYTHING in the texture of the road surface. I think there, frame material can make a difference. But a typical mtn bike tire with 30ish psi in it absorbs all that small scale vibration that you get on a road bike, leaving only the bigger bumps (+1"), which will never be dealt with by frame material!

After that it is all about cost effectiveness, weight, and longevity. And what the bike companies can convince us to buy that has the biggest profit margin: labor requirements for carbon frames are way less than for welded materials, and for that reason alone the industry is going to push it on us whether anyone wants it or not.

 

I love this discussion. There is no "data" because no one wants you to know that it makes little difference between all these materials. It is the same reason there is no "data" on 29ers vs 26ers that proves some huge advantage to 29ers. If all this stuff really made a difference there would be all sorts of charts and graphs out there extolling the virtues of whatever new cheaper technology the manufacturers wanted to sell us.

The forces acting on a mountain bike are so small! They are cushioned by our bodies own flexibility, and low pressure air the tires. Only relatively large-frequency and large amplitude "vibrations" are transmitted to the rider. And that is what full suspension is for. Go ride a road bike with 100psi tires. You can feel EVERYTHING in the texture of the road surface. I think there, frame material can make a difference. But a typical mtn bike tire with 30ish psi in it absorbs all that small scale vibration that you get on a road bike, leaving only the bigger bumps (+1"), which will never be dealt with by frame material!

After that it is all about cost effectiveness, weight, and longevity. And what the bike companies can convince us to buy that has the biggest profit margin: labor requirements for carbon frames are way less than for welded materials, and for that reason alone the industry is going to push it on us whether anyone wants it or not.

I can agree with that!

 

Reviving this discussion:
Measuring the effect of transmitted road vibration on cycling performance
http://web.mit.edu/2.tha/www/ppt/Bike-ISEA.pdf

 

When I was in college working at a bike shop we actually did a test. This was before carbon was common place, so we tested a Litespeed Ti, Ritchey steel, and Yrek alloy, and Specialized alloy. It was also the time before competing axle standards so we used the same wheels and tires and psi for each test. We had 4 emoloye Other comoonents differed (including suspension forks). We had 4 employees di the test. We found that differences in stiffness (bb deflecrion) where noticeable, but none of us could discern a difference in vertical comoliance on mtb trails. They were hardtails and transmitted the same amount if force when you hit stuff.

 

If it hasn't been said already, damping and compliance are two different things. A spring is compliant but doesn't damp (or damps very little). A fork or shock has oil and valving which provides damping. Frame materials are pretty resilient and though compliant, provide little damping. On mountain bikes with 2" or larger tires, most all the compliance is provided by the tires. On bikes with suspension, it's a combination of the tires and suspension, with the suspension providing the greatest amount. Tires are pretty resilient and can provide a pretty bouncy ride on their own as is especially evident on fat bikes. Adding some damping to a fat bike with a Bluto fork can help considerably.

Compliance and damping serve several functions: Provide a smoother ride for the rider, allow the tires to follow the terrain and maintain better traction, and to reduce peak forces experienced by the bike and rider.

 

Ghost thread. [emoji14]

Sent from my E5803 using Tapatalk