# BikeCad vs 3D cad



## smdubovsky (Apr 27, 2007)

There is another thread on models for bikecad which made me think of this again: I talked to the guys father @ the bikecad booth at NAHBS (son/developer was giving a presentation or something.) He kept saying he pushes his son to charge more because it does all this stuff. Im sure it was more sales pitch than anything. 'What a great deal it is at the current price' type thing but it got me to thinking... (which is always a terrible idea!)

* Bikecad is $350CAD (which is ~1:1 to the USD right now)
* Alibre full blown 3D cad is $100 for the standard version (Pro is $500 which includes Algor FEA). 

Of course bikecad is easier to use up front, but if there were models for Alibre, you can do the same type 'spreadsheet' entry of dimensions and have everything pop into place like bikecad does. Of course it will never be QUITE as easy as bikecad since its not a dedicated tool. The tradeoff is that its FAR more powerful (can basically do anything.) Want a curved tube, twin tubes, offset joint, photorealistic rendering, etc - no problem. W/ a community making parts models it could be incredibly powerful.

I use both bikecad (non pro) and Alibre (and a tiny bit of solidedge and solidworks @ the office). Both are great tools. As an engineer, $350 just seems steep in todays world of plummeting 3d cad tool prices. 

Thoughts?


----------



## thefuzzbl (Jul 5, 2006)

i use a combination, i use bikecad free to get fit data and just look at angles, then i use solidworks to build the model. i have my jig modeled in solidworks so i then mate the frame to the jig. then i get measurements for setting up the jig from solidworks and i get tables for tube lengths and angles. then i use tubenotcher+ to get the miters for things that my hole saw has a problem with, i.e. seatstays. it all works out, maybe not the fastest but getting there is half the fun.


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

I use both BikeCAD Pro and Solidworks to do my bikes. BikeCAD will do just about anything you need for basic bike builds. Solidworks is key for when you do the more challenging builds and you plan on having parts jobbed out.


----------



## jay_ntwr (Feb 15, 2008)

smdubovsky said:


> Thoughts?


I used BikeCAD just so I'd understand how it works and then put everything into Alibre Design. I use Alibre Design because I worked there for several years when it was a start up so I'm familiar with it and still have a financially vested interest in seeing it succeed as a company (I always feel I should disclose that).

I have figured out how to model a frame fairly quickly in Alibre Design and I can make the changes even faster and have the same frame with different geometry. I still haven't tried to link a spreadsheet to the frame yet and then do the mods there. If you'd like to work on something like that, I'd be interested in trying it with you I suppose. It would be really cool to run the body measurements into a spreadsheet and have AD just pop a solid model in.

I really do like having an E sized sheet printed out to work off of though. It makes working off a flat surface without a jig fairly straightforward.


----------



## smdubovsky (Apr 27, 2007)

jay_ntwr said:


> I use Alibre Design because I worked there for several years when it was a start up so I'm familiar with it and still have a financially vested interest in seeing it succeed as a company (I always feel I should disclose that).


Cool. I tried their free eval quite a while back but finally popped for a v12 license. Its grown by leaps and bounds. It seems they're really taking the small shop world by storm. We've used solidedge @ the office for almost 10yrs and our cad guy was quite impressed w/ alibre. Im interested in it for the CAM eventually since I recently aquired a wells index CNC mill but Im getting off topic

I'd be interested in your bike model if you don't mind. Im an EE by trade so am no cad expert. I can do solid & even curvy stuff fine but haven't joined tubes at odd angles in multiple planes yet. I need to get our cad guy to give me a quick demo of the theory of how he'd do it and I'll be good to go


----------



## zipzit (Aug 3, 2005)

Hmmm... you guys really got me thinking here.

Right now I use the free bikecad to look at a bike design. I input critical dimensions on an excel spreadsheet to which I've added a macro to create a .dxf output file. The spreadsheet gives a 2 dimensional visual model to show how things interrelate. The DXF output places points, centerlines and key circles into a 3D cad ready model. It wouldn't be hard to add straight tubular elements as well to the model. (Bent tubes are an entirely different matter... Of particular concern is I'm NOT capable of analyzing bent chain stay to tire clearance in any 'automated' fashion. I also haven't figured out fork to down tube clearance, but that should be easily do-able. ) And as for CAD stuff, I'm an Autocad 2010 3D guy, but I'm toying with Pro-Engineer as well. 

How much interest is there in this? Maybe an other tab on the tubenotcher project, or a seperate stand alone somewhere? I'm thinking web based input, DXF output to your local hard drive. Hmm... It might even make more sense to just write the doggone thing for the BikeCad folks. I know we're both fluent in the same software. Another option is to just make the Excel spreadsheet available at my web site for download. One thing, because its got macros tied to it, it would specifically require Microsoft Excel.

zip.


----------



## marks_bike (Aug 22, 2006)

Yeah bikecad pro is a bit pricey but the problem with Alibre is there's no mac client 
I'm using a 10 year old copy of bikecad, I think it's bike cad 2000 or something like that. Seems to work well enough. I also used zips tube notcher app for my last build which worked out awesome.

Zip, I wouldn't mind checking out that spreadsheet. --Mark


----------



## Thylacine (Feb 29, 2004)

I think there's a few companies out there with spreadsheets that drive a 2d output to generate cut lengths and mitre angle drawings and/or lists. A guy here was talking about it 7 years ago, so no doubt he has one now to streamline the transition from studio to shop.

If anyone does anything, _please_ don't do it in java.


----------



## builder_for_the_trail (Mar 13, 2010)

smdubovsky said:


> There is another thread on models for bikecad which made me think of this again: I talked to the guys father @ the bikecad booth at NAHBS (son/developer was giving a presentation or something.) He kept saying he pushes his son to charge more because it does all this stuff. Im sure it was more sales pitch than anything. 'What a great deal it is at the current price' type thing but it got me to thinking... (which is always a terrible idea!)
> ....
> 
> As an engineer, $350 just seems steep in todays world of plummeting 3d cad tool prices.
> ...


One advantage to BikeCAD Pro is that for $350 you get all of the future versions for free. Can't think of any other CAD tool that doesn't charge you for updates. At NAHBS the BikeCAD guy was showing off the new curved tubes feature, which looked pretty sweet. Seems like they have a lot of other neat features in store, too.

I agree, though, it might not be worth it if you have other means to do the geometric calculations. Probably depends on whether or not you want a detailed drawing of the bike and components with a paint job and whatnot. The fact that it's bike-specific does save a lot of time.


----------



## smdubovsky (Apr 27, 2007)

builder_for_the_trail said:


> Can't think of any other CAD tool that doesn't charge you for updates.


SolidEdge 2D is free. So not only do they not charg for updates they don't even charge for the program. The manuf world has gone 99.99% 3D so you can't even give 2D away anymore



builder_for_the_trail said:


> At NAHBS the BikeCAD guy was showing off the new curved tubes feature, which looked pretty sweet.


Yeah the curved seat tube plot hanging on the wall bit is what drew me over to talk to them.



builder_for_the_trail said:


> The fact that it's bike-specific does save a lot of time.


Ehhhh, depends. Bikecad has a couple canned designs that can be stretched/shaped due to numeric inputs. The exact same thing can be done in any modern 2d/3d cad. All of the parametric modelers will take a table/excel and regenerate the model. So you wouldn't even have to know how to make a model once someone has done the hard work. Just open the file, edit the table of values, bam done. Agreed it will never be quite as easy, but it could come darn close.


----------



## mtbikedroid (Jul 1, 2007)

*Human Model*

One of the features of BikeCAD that always interested me was how well the drawing of the rider worked/useful for mountain bikes (fitting programs always seems most useful for street bikes), i have used the free version and would always like to add a rider of given body dimensions for the drawing for both presenting and eyeballing fit ... there are no screen shots on his site for mountain bike riders ... (geeze and like an old geezer i was going to have him demo this at the richmond show and then i started talking to pvd and then for some reason my wife unit decided i needed to buy a t-shirt and then my brain slipped on the demo?) droid


----------



## compositepro (Jun 21, 2007)

I have used 3d cad for a long long time 

Its like anything else!!! a tool and any cad system should be setup to what you intend to use it for...the major downfall is training and learning how to use that tool..

.in an earlier part of my life i did application engineering for solidworks and was often roped in to fix company problems...not so much a problem with the software just that company x was usually shown a demo of how great it was by the sales guy only to find their productivity dropped throught the floor when the company tried to transition to it...this was a clever money making ploy as company x was the told to send their guys on a training course...which then turned into how to sweep a pipe along a curve (modelling) to mate it to a radiator(assembly) and then do a drawing.

if company x didnt make pipes for radiators and made plastic kettles then they were no further along.... they need to learn surfacing...ah more training needed...eventually i got fed up of this and went it alone (saw $$$$) basically identifying what that company made and how they wanted it to integrate into their production pipeline...If it was a machine shop the templates were different but still they had a base start poin tthey could work from and learned along the way through modifying .they were usually a lot happier to do this and make money than pay for training 

This is not dissimilar to bikecad its a simple to use software that is specific to bikes ..you can do this in any 3D cad software but again you need to lay some groundworks.I use skeleton templates for geometry (very very similar to the output you get from bikecad)and on top of this you need to actually model the component and tubes (time consuming but very quick to change once you have them)but once its done you can alter it very easily by filling in number boxes

if its a tubular frame which like simple 2d cad be very quick and easy to set up by the time you have LEARNED how the software works its no harder in 3d than 2d

composite frames on the other hand need surfacing (long learn time if your a newbie) 

i do have the master skeletons lots of tubes and components modelled up and said before i would post them but i dont have anywhere to host im afraid!!!


----------



## golden boy (Oct 29, 2008)

Yea! The search function on the forum is working again!

I am approaching the decision point between purchasing BikeCAD or a general 3D CAD program. I downloaded a new free product from PTC called Creo Elements/Direct Modeling Express. I'm sure it's capable of modeling a bike frame, but my background is in parametric-driven modeling (Pro/E) and this program is part of the new genre of "direct modelers." Think of it as push/pull modeling. Great for conceptualizing, but I want my models driven by hard numbers, thanks.

Alibre Personal Edition for $200 is looking appealing. As said before, BikeCAD is great for basic frame design (I've been playing with the free online version), but if you want to design your own dropouts or other custom parts, a more general modeling program seems to be the way to go. I'm an industrial designer by degree, so I guess it's my nature to think outside the box and not automatically accept off-the-shelf parts. Plus, I fell in love with solid modeling, I just enjoy the hell out of it. 2D does not cut it as a design tool anymore.


----------



## jay_ntwr (Feb 15, 2008)

golden boy said:


> Yea! The search function on the forum is working again!
> 
> I am approaching the decision point between purchasing BikeCAD or a general 3D CAD program. I downloaded a new free product from PTC called Creo Elements/Direct Modeling Express. I'm sure it's capable of modeling a bike frame, but my background is in parametric-driven modeling (Pro/E) and this program is part of the new genre of "direct modelers." Think of it as push/pull modeling. Great for conceptualizing, but I want my models driven by hard numbers, thanks.
> 
> Alibre Personal Edition for $200 is looking appealing. As said before, BikeCAD is great for basic frame design (I've been playing with the free online version), but if you want to design your own dropouts or other custom parts, a more general modeling program seems to be the way to go. I'm an industrial designer by degree, so I guess it's my nature to think outside the box and not automatically accept off-the-shelf parts. Plus, I fell in love with solid modeling, I just enjoy the hell out of it. 2D does not cut it as a design tool anymore.


Ha, yes, search is great huh? I no longer have a financial interest in Alibre (they sold the company to some folks that make 3D printers and now my options aren't worth anything). However, I'm still using it--just designed a dining room table in it that I started on over the weekend. It's going to be one rad table.


----------



## golden boy (Oct 29, 2008)

Bummer, Jay. I remember when companies touted stock options as a perk. Do they still do that?

Have fun with the table project.


----------



## jay_ntwr (Feb 15, 2008)

golden boy said:


> Bummer, Jay. I remember when companies touted stock options as a perk. Do they still do that?
> 
> Have fun with the table project.


Yeah, they still do that.... Then the angel investors get all the money and the folks that did all the work get screwed.

It's ok though, it's the finality that I've been waiting for really. At least I know that they'll never be worth anything instead of "maybe one day these may be worth something".


----------



## smdubovsky (Apr 27, 2007)

Woah, a old thread I started I've since stepped up to Alibre expert (I need CAD/CAM for other stuff, bikes is just a hobby.) Disappointed in some of the features/direction (not all their fault) but the personal edition is still a steal IMO. They run sales all the time so hunt around to get it for ~$100 if you go that route. FWIW, If you get serious on any 3D cad get an inexpensive 3dconnexion space mouse. HUGE time saver and you'll wonder how you worked w/o one.
3Dconnexion : SpaceNavigator


----------



## golden boy (Oct 29, 2008)

Thanks for the tips. I watched the space mouse demo - pretty cool. I'll keep an eye out for sales on Alibre PE.


----------



## jay_ntwr (Feb 15, 2008)

smdubovsky said:


> Woah, a old thread I started I've since stepped up to Alibre expert (I need CAD/CAM for other stuff, bikes is just a hobby.) Disappointed in some of the features/direction (not all their fault) but the personal edition is still a steal IMO. They run sales all the time so hunt around to get it for ~$100 if you go that route. FWIW, If you get serious on any 3D cad get an inexpensive 3dconnexion space mouse. HUGE time saver and you'll wonder how you worked w/o one.
> 3Dconnexion : SpaceNavigator


Hey, so you're putting bike frames in it huh? How about components? Do you have any components modeled? I typically build the whole bike (within reason) in Alibre before I start mitering tubes.

I was thinking that we could share some component files if you did (or I could share some of mine at least).

Thanks for the tip on the space mouse. I've always wanted one but refused to throw down $400 for one--good to see they have an entry level one for $100. It's on my list of things to buy. Connexion's website only says Alibre 9 and 10 but I'd think that the driver would work through the current revision just fine.


----------



## mickuk (Jul 6, 2007)

Hi jay_ntwr

I just watched an Alibre demo video (tempted to get it for home - need to investigate what it will cost as has to come through a reseller in UK) . It looks pretty similar to Autodesk Inventor which I use a bit at work (but I'm in no way an expert user).

In Alibre, approximately what method do you use for modelling the frame? Can you get mitre templates? I'll explain a bit more:-

The quick method of building the frame in Inventor is to do a basic wire frame, and then use "framework generator" to drop in and mitre tubes. However I've not found a way to get tube mitre templates from that method. 

The only way I managed to get templates from Inventor was to make tubes as sheet metal parts, sketch the wall cross section and a centreline, then revolve them 359.99 deg (leaving a tiny slit). It would then let me "unroll" the tubes to get templates. All a bit messy.

I'm interested to hear what others have managed. 3D is great for working out complex tube bends in multiple planes (both for making the fit / clearances work and then figuring out the steps to actually produce the bends in metal)

Thanks

Mick


----------



## jay_ntwr (Feb 15, 2008)

mickuk said:


> Hi jay_ntwr
> 
> I just watched an Alibre demo video (tempted to get it for home - need to investigate what it will cost as has to come through a reseller in UK) . It looks pretty similar to Autodesk Inventor which I use a bit at work (but I'm in no way an expert user).
> 
> ...


Hey, be careful watching those videos--I used to make them and there can always be some smoke and mirrors--but these days, it actually is WYSIWYG and it's pretty solid--no pun intended.

Mick, no, you don't end up with the miter templates but you can do that for free on Nova's website with the App that Zipzit (on this forum) created for them. It works great and I just go straight to my model and pull the angles and tube diameters off from it and generate all my miter templates.

The reason I like 3D is because I just don't see the point in designing in 2D when 3D doesn't take all that much longer.

I typically model a frame with the BB shell at the origin and put in axes and planes as needed to extrude the tubes from/to. I do the miter as a cut and typically reference it off the mating tube so that the whole thing ends up parametric. That way, once it's done, modify the HT diameter a mm or so, bang, got a new top tube miter and the 2D E sheet is up to date and ready to take to Kinkos for printing.

I like checking clearances for the fork, chainring, cranks, tire, etc. in the computer before cutting the tubes. It works well for me. I'm not saying it's for everyone because learning a solid modeling system is not super easy but for someone with experience, I think it makes a lot of sense.


----------



## mickuk (Jul 6, 2007)

Thanks Jay

Yeah - I noticed a few things that got conveniently skipped in the video  It was more to see how similar it was to Inventor (looks pretty close).

I'd pretty much decided to do the next frame in a similar method to yours so that I can just adjust values in a table for future builds (and get the occasional mitre template elsewhere). I've also already got the jig modelled - with parametric it is really quick to drop the frame into the jig - sorted jig dimensions makes the build easy.


----------



## jay_ntwr (Feb 15, 2008)

mickuk;8949361I've also already got the jig modelled - with parametric it is really quick to drop the frame into the jig - sorted jig dimensions makes the build easy.[/QUOTE said:


> It's funny you mention that. I was going to do the same thing. I just haven't gotten to it yet.


----------



## mickuk (Jul 6, 2007)

I cheated with the jig model - it is mostly Bosch-Rexroth aluminium extrusions and hinges - just download the models and stick the bits together  . Any bespoke jig bits needed to be drawn / modelled anyway so I could make them.


----------



## bee (Apr 7, 2008)

Holy crap! Aibre? Solidworks? Did you guys forget about the venerable AutoCad? It does everything you could ever need or want with bikes.


----------



## zipzit (Aug 3, 2005)

Im toying with the idea of updating the tube notcher software with input key dimensions, output a DXF file with all tubing and node intersections in 3d space ready for autocad, my weapon of choice.

Problem of course is available time. Uncle Henry has me busy with the day job. I commute from Detroit to Chicago Mon- Fri. My wife barely recognizes me.

What i would really love to see is an open 3d library of components... Hubs, cranksets, pedals, seats, handlebars, tires, etc. Gosh, that would be great. Can that stuff even be shared, legally?


----------



## smdubovsky (Apr 27, 2007)

jay_ntwr said:


> Hey, so you're putting bike frames in it huh? How about components? Do you have any components modeled? I typically build the whole bike (within reason) in Alibre before I start mitering tubes.
> 
> I was thinking that we could share some component files if you did (or I could share some of mine at least).
> 
> Thanks for the tip on the space mouse. I've always wanted one but refused to throw down $400 for one--good to see they have an entry level one for $100. It's on my list of things to buy. Connexion's website only says Alibre 9 and 10 but I'd think that the driver would work through the current revision just fine.


I've only done one frame and way back when I was still learning it. It was partially parametric but I goofed something up at the HT/TT junction. Editing/pulling the tubes too much did odd things. I mostly do car parts on it now and haven't gone back to try my hand at a bike again now that I've mastered some more of the finer details.

For modeling parts you have in hand you might want to look up the david laserscanner sw. I've played w/ it a little and its REALLY cool. A fellow demonstrated it at or local cnc club mtg and it took mere minutes to create a fully glued together point cloud. We've been joking (somewhat seriously) to scale up the patterns and do a whole car

The ~$80 space mouse works fine in the latest (v12?). The driver is fairly generic. The cad guy has the $$$ one at the office and its the same minus the extra buttons and screen. Though we use SolidEdge there.


----------



## jay_ntwr (Feb 15, 2008)

bee said:


> Holy crap! Aibre? Solidworks? Did you guys forget about the venerable AutoCad? It does everything you could ever need or want with bikes.


I actually got hired at Alibre because I knew AutoCAD and Mechanical Desktop. I'd never use either again though. I'd agree that it would work fine for bikes if you already owned a copy but there is certainly no good reason to use it over something else if you don't already have a CAD package.


----------



## smdubovsky (Apr 27, 2007)

bee said:


> Holy crap! Aibre? Solidworks? Did you guys forget about the venerable AutoCad? It does everything you could ever need or want with bikes.


Haha. Sure and costs $4000+ for a single seat.
Autodesk - AutoCAD - Compare AutoCAD Products


----------



## jay_ntwr (Feb 15, 2008)

golden boy said:


> Have fun with the table project.


FYI, it's coming along. There will be a stretcher between the leg assemblies, but I haven't settled on the design just yet. In Alibre:











Jay said:


> Not enough light in the house last night, late night....:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## jgrano (Dec 5, 2011)

Just wondering if anyone uses any kind of FEA for the frames they design? Or is there a lot of trust in the tubing selection out there?


----------



## jgerhardt (Aug 31, 2009)

Just a thought, what if the tabletop was more of a oval shape than that of a rectangle? Maybe not as efficient in regards to seating but maybe would itself to the curvey legs more?


----------



## jay_ntwr (Feb 15, 2008)

jgrano said:


> Just wondering if anyone uses any kind of FEA for the frames they design? Or is there a lot of trust in the tubing selection out there?


I've done a lot of FEA on my stuff but not really for tubing selection per se.  The seat tube junction that I used is entirely proven in FEA and then validated after thousands of miles of me being the tester (go back and find some of the WWTP threads that show that design and the discussion around it if you'd like).

Also, I was toying early on with how to vent the BB shell. It turns out that slotting or putting big letters in the BB shell will allow it to flex dramatically more at the bearings. Now it's nothing to get excited about, but it's still on the order of 4-5 times more if I remember right from the results. But if that's 4 thousandths instead of 1, big deal--I chose a simple hole though due to the results.

I've done a ton of work on bar/stem combos as well. It's something I have yet to build, but it's something I certainly want to get to.

Finally, I've done a lot of work with FEA on some dropouts as well as "tested" some stuff that is readily available on the market. In that, I was surprised at the way the seatstays move as the rear end flexes. And I still don't have a prototype set of DO made either.... I'm way behind on building my own ideas....

jgerhardt, just sit tight on the top--I've got some things in the works and it may end up more of an hourglass shape if the woodshop can deliver on what they say they can.


----------

