Planing

[zank]

I can feel my bike plane at around 7% body fat and 4 W/kg.

[Matthew Strongin]

Planing? What is it?

It's that conversation over in the bike forum, but that's not important now.

I'm in the air en route to Las Vegas from Miami. Am I planing?

[steve garro]

I can feel my bike plane at around 7% body fat and 4 W/kg.

Yeah, mine planed super fucking hard when I was 6' tall x 167lbs and shivered in the shade in the summer.

- Garro.

[ericpmoss]

I know I'm stepping into the snark tank, but has anyone considered that 'planing' is just a poor word to describe a bike that flexes "just right" for the given rider? We all talk about forks that are "noodles" or frames that are "unforgiving", as well as bikes that "just go", so what is any more wrong with "planing"? Would a different term help?

[Chauncey Matthews]

I know I'm stepping into the snark tank, but has anyone considered that 'planing' is just a poor word to describe a bike that flexes "just right" for the given rider?

That's exactly how Jan Heine describes it.

[Chauncey Matthews]

I am familiar with bar napkin engineering but 12pk box engineering…….man, that's pro!
Pen, even, no erasing - shows fortitude and confidence.

- Garro.

Oh man, I'm glad I read back through the thread.
That's your winning post right there! Close thread.

[ericpmoss]

That's exactly how Jan Heine describes it.

OK, and it makes sense to me. So why the group-hate? Granted, it isn't a revelation to slap a name on tuning a frame to its rider, but it hardly seems the crime it's being lampooned as.

[Craig Ryan]

It's not hate, just fun with something most don't believe in.

[Mike Mcdermid]

OK, and it makes sense to me. So why the group-hate? Granted, it isn't a revelation to slap a name on tuning a frame to its rider, but it hardly seems the crime it's being lampooned as.

I'm not sure about others but would it be silly to rock up to your frame guy and say "its gotta plane man"

[Jonny Cycles]

... I think its pretty interesting stuff.

As do I! Thanks for the graph and attempt at an explanation. I too appreciate the audacity of pen on cardboard.

I know I'm stepping into the snark tank, but has anyone considered that 'planing' is just a poor word to describe a bike that flexes "just right" for the given rider? We all talk about forks that are "noodles" or frames that are "unforgiving", as well as bikes that "just go", so what is any more wrong with "planing"? Would a different term help?

Thanks for stepping in and attempting to bring this back to a rational discussion.

So why the group-hate? Granted, it isn't a revelation to slap a name on tuning a frame to its rider, but it hardly seems the crime it's being lampooned as.

Perhaps it is the simply the term "planing" that causes otherwise rational people to revert to junior high grade comments, however I think its because Jan and Bicycle Quarterly take the description of the idea of planing a bit further in saying that when a frame flexes just right for a given rider it actually makes that rider faster.

My still evolving take on the subject: Over the last few years I've gravitated frames that have more flex and find that are more enjoyable to ride. I was interested to find that Bicycle Quarterly had the same conclusion. When they claimed that these bikes were actually faster I was a bit skeptical...and still am. Don’t get me wrong, I’d love it if the thinwall standard gauge tubing frames I like to ride were actually faster than their oversize tubing versions, but Bicyle Quarterly has yet to devise a test to convince me of this. I applaud them for trying. I certainly wouldn't want to attempt to come up with a fairly low budget way to test a complex theory. In the meantime I’m going to build a few frames following Bicycle Quarterly’s tubing recommendations more closely (thin, small diameter main tubes with stout chainstays). If I like them better that what I've been riding and building great. If not, then lesson learned.

[e-RICHIE]

I just saw this train wreck.
Let's try to either reply intelligently to the OP or avoid the thread altogether.
Thanks.

[timto]

I know positivity that I prefer a bike with skinny tubes for my weight 150lbs, my riding style (somewhat slower cadence) and type of rides ( b group club rides, and single and double centuries)


Tubing size and handling characteristics more generally speaking should align w riding style, weight and preference imho

Jan has a formula that works for him and he promotes it not unlike race oriented brands promote stiffness

[EricKeller]

my road bike isn't low trail, but it's lower trail than I'm used to. I find that it feels livelier because the front end responds to pedaling. This has been my theory on what planing is. And it's clear to me that if you like the way your bike feels, it's going to be faster for you. True believers tell me that I'm wrong, and one of those tests where the BQ folks covered the frame in pipe insulation proves it.

My experience is this, I switched from a 30 y.o. Columbus SL bike to Spirit for Lugs, and really can't tell the difference. My conclusion is that frame flex doesn't really have a significant effect on efficiency. I'm again inclined to think that if your prejudices are fulfilled by the noticable aspects of a bike's response to your efforts, your power output will be higher

[GrantM]

So why the group-hate? Granted, it isn't a revelation to slap a name on tuning a frame to its rider, but it hardly seems the crime it's being lampooned as.

"Group-hate" is a little strong. Yes'm there is some snark in this thread, in this case by some regular members
who contribute a great deal to the forum (under normal circumstances). In general, the mods here are backing off
directly shaping these conversations, due to general criticism of heavy handed moderation in the past.
So yeah, to those having a little too much fun poking the hornet's nest... Tone it down please.

Thanks.

[zank]

My apologies. I was just trying to have a little fun. I didn't mean for it to come off as hate. Sorry about that, John.

[Too Tall]

Bringing this back around....
BQ claims something quite complicated and without substantial emperical proof, doubt creeps in. Take a breath and consider some of the claims which BQ has asserted, many dismissed patently and are now widely accepted. Tire width being the most obvious candidate for "see I told yah".
Ok Jan, it is safe to swim in our water again.
-J

[Mark Kelly]

BQ has proposed a theory* which has, so far, not been disproved but which appears to contain a falsifiability criterion, thus conforming to Popper's definition of science.

As the state of instrumentation improves we will probably see the application of good empirical evidence to this theory. My money says that the measurments will show that some energy is lost and some is returned. Debate will continue.

* As I see it, the theory is that strain energy is stored in frame deformation and returned to the drivetrain and that this can be beneficial to the rider in certain circumstances.

[Jonathan]

I'd be curious to know if similar theories have been proposed and sorted for other performance vehicles. I'm particularly thinking sailboats, but wonder about motorcycles and racing cars too.

[jerk]

i am of the opinion that the torsional stiffness of a bike frame does impact how it is going to ride- jan isn't wrong about that. there's also no reason not to try to quantify one's subjective experiences.

listen- the tubing does effect things in a big way- the same way all the variables and choices that go in to making a bike effect things in a big way. i'm not a candidate for a bike that planes, or wiggles along the the top tube or has a frame that is built to be as light as possible- but some folks are- or like that kind of bike- and that's cool.

regarding the science- of course there is science behind why Jan likes bikes that "plane"...his own description of it doesn't really make sense to me- but he is clearly experiencing something based on the way the bikes he likes are built- and that's ok.

Jonathan: superbikes certainly reached a point where the chassis were getting too stiff for the suspension to work the way the riders wanted them too- and the manufacturers have made the new fastest frames less rigid as a result. cars are bit different- and in general proper suspension works best the more rigid you make the chassis.

[Curt Goodrich]

As someone that cut their teeth making bikes for others I didn't have the luxury of ego. If the print said 1" top tube or 34.9mm down tube it wasn't my decision to decide what was "best." I think this was a valuable lesson and allowed me to glimpse into the world of individual preferences. People like different things and one person's stiff is and another person's flexible. It all works. My only qualms with the theory is when it stops being about preferences and starts being about one way. I think the fastest/best bike is the one that behaves in the way the rider is accustomed. When that happens the rider is comfortable to put out their best efforts.