Advertisement

Sports Engineering

, Volume 21, Issue 2, pp 75–84 | Cite as

Development of a test rig and a testing procedure for bicycle frame stiffness measurements

  • Joachim Vanwalleghem
  • Ives De Baere
  • Mia Loccufier
  • Wim Van Paepegem
Original Article

Abstract

The stiffness measuring method for bicycle frames is not standardized, leading to a wide variety of test setups; they differ in many aspects such as applied load, support constraints and frame deflection measurement. The aim of this paper is to draw attention to this problem and to quantify the perturbing, unwanted side effects that influence the stiffness measurement of the bicycle frame. This is illustrated by developing a multi-purpose rating test method for bicycle frame stiffness. The proposed test rig design considers different aspects which should be taken into account when measuring the bicycle frame stiffness. In the experimental setup, it is observed that the contribution of the test bench compliance led to 21% difference in the frame stiffness results; the influence due to the head, the tube-bearing type the corresponding preload resulted in up to 19% difference in the stiffness results between the lowest and highest stiffness values measured; hysteresis effects caused by pulleys are estimated to introduce errors up to 11%; and the influence due to the operator variability and sensor accuracy is estimated to be less than 3%.

Keywords

Stiffness Bicycle frame Measuring errors Design 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Agency for Science by Innovation and Technology (IWT) [Grant number 120789] and by Eddy Merckx Cycles.

Compliance with ethical standards

Ethical approval

No human subjects were involved in this study.

References

  1. 1.
    Lessard LB et al (1995) Utilization of FEA in the design of composite bicycle frames. Composites 26:72–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lépine J et al. (2014) The relative contribution of road bicycle components on vibration induced to the cyclist. Sports Eng 2:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lépine J et al. (2013) A laboratory excitation technique to test road bike vibration transmission. Exp Tech 40:227–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pelland-Leblanc J-P et al (2014) Effect of structural damping on vibrations transmitted to road cyclists. In: De Clerck J (ed) Topics in modal analysis I, vol 7. Springer International Publishing, Florida, pp 283–290Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Petrone N, Giubilato F (2013) Development of a test method for the comparative analysis of bicycle saddle vibration transmissibility in 6th Asia-Pacific Congress on Sports Technology, Hong Kong, pp 288–293Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Barry N et al (2015) Aerodynamic performance and riding posture in road cycling and triathlon. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part P J Sports Eng Technol 229:28–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dyer BTJ, Noroozi S (2015) A proposed field test method and an assessment of the rotational drag of contemporary front bicycle wheels. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part P J Sports Eng Technol 229:67–75Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jermy M et al (2008) Translational and rotational aerodynamic drag of composite construction bicycle wheels. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part P J Sports Eng Technol 222:91–102Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Drouet J-M, Champoux Y (2012) Development of a three-load component instrumented stem for road cycling. Proced Eng 34:502–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Drouet J-M et al (2008) Development of multi-platform instrumented force pedals for track cycling (P49). The engineering of sport 7. Springer, Paris, pp 263–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rowe T et al (1998) A pedal dynamometer for off-road bicycling. J Biomech Eng Trans ASME 120:160–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Moore KJ (2012) Human control of a bicycle, doctor of philosophy dissertation, mechanical and aerospace engineering, University of California, DavisGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Oertel C et al (2010) Construction of a test bench for bicycle rim and disc brakes. In: 8th Conference of the International Sports Engineering Association (ISEA), Procedia Engineering, vol 2, issue 2, pp 2943–2948Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Giubilato F et al (2014) Engineering evaluation of “reactivity” of racing bicycle wheels. Procedia Eng 72:489–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lépine J et al (2012) Technique to measure the dynamic behavior of road bike wheels. In: Allemang R et al (eds) Topics in modal analysis II, vol 6. Springer, New York, pp 465–470Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Petrone N, Giubilato F (2011) Methods for evaluating the radial structural behaviour of racing bicycle wheels. In: 5th Asia-Pacific Congress on Sports Technology. pp 88–93Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Herrick JE et al (2011) Comparison of physiological responses and performance between mountain bicycles with differing suspension systems. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 6:546–558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Liu YS et al (2014) Analyzing the influences of bicycle suspension systems on pedaling forces and human body vibration. J Vibroeng 16:2527–2535Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    EFBe Prüftechnik (2010) Rigidity test stands. http://www.efbe.de/produkte/steifigpruef/enindex.php. Accessed 5 May 2015
  20. 20.
    Giant (2013) The truth about road frame testing. Ride Life Ride Giant, vol 2, Retrieved from https://www.giant-bicycles.com/_upload/showcases/2013/TCR_FrameTestingData.pdf
  21. 21.
    Rinard D (2015) Lab vs. reality. http://www.cervelo.com/en/engineering/thinking-and-processes/lab-vs-reality.html. Accessed 21 June 2015

Copyright information

© International Sports Engineering Association 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joachim Vanwalleghem
    • 1
  • Ives De Baere
    • 1
  • Mia Loccufier
    • 2
  • Wim Van Paepegem
    • 1
  1. 1.Mechanics of Materials and Structures, Department Of Materials, Textiles And Chemical EngineeringGhent UniversityZwijnaardeBelgium
  2. 2.Department of Electrical Energy, Metals, Mechanical Construction & SystemsGhent UniversityZwijnaardeBelgium

Personalised recommendations