Ultra-light Weight Bikes
Tom Kunich
Before that meant getting better and better bicycles.
But now the problem is that these race bikes are so ultra light weight that
normal riders shouldn't be riding them. Racers can get expert inspection of
these bikes which will notice cracks developing in the carbon layups that
normal riders won't notice until it's too late - as the frame breaks.
It's even worse with forks since that's what happened to me. I went face
first into the ground apparently (since I have absolutely no memory of it)
which has caused an amazing amount of damage to my memory.
Now I'm back to riding my steel bikes and the only carbon fork I'll use is
top of the line and not super lightweight (Colnago C-40).
Be VERY careful of these new race bikes and leave them for racers and not
every day riders.
Anton Berlin
Well said Tom. We don't all go around driving McClarens with ceramic
brakes either.
bar
meh, i can't afford that fancy shit anyway. But they see me rollin
(on my red all-alum cannondale 2.8) ... they hatin
harg...@yahoo.com
stated some time ago. I think that racing frames should be subject to
CPSC testing standards. The UCI should implement a similar testing
procedure and eliminate the min weight requirements
Tom Kunich
news:33bf18f7-e515-4333...@b39g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> The problem is that the consumer is not adequately educated as I
> stated some time ago. I think that racing frames should be subject to
> CPSC testing standards. The UCI should implement a similar testing
> procedure and eliminate the min weight requirements
The CPSC testing standards cannot detect misaligned carbon fiber cloth
strands or imperfections in the coating procedures.
Carbon fiber bikes are fine got racing since they give a slight weight
advantage to a competitor.
However, the weight difference makes little to no difference to a sport
rider.
Manufacturers should make that clear. But I suppose that after they start
getting sued enough times they'll start realizing the significant
differences between racing and sport ridng.
harg...@yahoo.com
> <hargo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:33bf18f7-e515-4333...@b39g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > The problem is that the consumer is not adequately educated as I
> > stated some time ago. I think that racing frames should be subject to
> > CPSC testing standards. The UCI should implement a similar testing
Yes that's true and the CPSC standards need to be updated. Perhaps a
ISO 9000 or international equivalent certification could help. One
problem is that a lot of the European manufacturers like Colnago are
primarily interested in making show bikes that will make headlines at
the shows.
cur...@the-md-russells.org
>Yes that's true and the CPSC standards need to be updated. Perhaps a
>ISO 9000 or international equivalent certification could help. One
>problem is that a lot of the European manufacturers like Colnago are
>primarily interested in making show bikes that will make headlines at
>the shows.
Bicycles are manufactered and put into the hands of children, young
adults and general consumers. Those products HAVE ISO 9001:2000
standards already and evidently those bikes that are for those markets
are built to ISO 9001:2000 standards by Colnago and most non-boutique
bicycle manufacturers. Many, many of the other processed materials
that are used to make bicycles also have ISO 9000 standards, such as
tubing, fasteners etc.
By their nature, show products or UCI promulgated products used for
racing are EXTREMELY unlikely to have a ISO 9000 product standard.
So you want, if I read your posts correctly, an ISO committee to come
together (we can argue over who would be on this technical committee)
to set standards for 'race forks sold to the common and stupid
uninformed public or pretend race forks sold to the common and stupid
public that should know better and buy the forks that we don't have
warning stickers like no one over 130 pounds should ride this fork'
forks.
Having followed these arguments at a formal level when younger and
more involved, hint, we have trouble deciding what makes a bicycle
safe at night. Marketing people and lawyers argue over whether the
language describing a product is sufficient warning that it is NOT a
standard product falling under the rules for stuff sold to stupid
people that leave bikes out in the rain. Word the standard slightly
wrong (perhaps on purpose) and Colnago makes a minor change in product
and process while half of the boutique manufacturers that are their
competition for high end bikes go out of business. And having been
involved directly with a couple of these manufacturers, often superior
products have as much problem with standards as the inferior.
Standard setting, once it gets past the mass market stuff, is often a
barrier to entry and a way to eliminate competition, while controlling
the direction of innovation to match what the big boys want to begin
with. Its even true in things like accounting standards, where GAAP
often makes no sense at all until you realize it was essentially
written by the big firms for the big clients, true logic be damned.
Fah on your standard setting and fah on your crusade to protect stupid
consumers with too much money. Tom is fine with warning people -
whether he is right or wrong, maybe some safety obsessed riders will
pay attention and follow through. But your standards for high end
product can't be done fast enough with any assurance the end results
matches the intent.
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
Steve Freides
What ever happened to "caveat emptor?" I have no problem being
responsible for what I ride being appropriate to the riding I do, and
it's why I go to the LBS to purchase equipment about which I have any
questions.
And who is "we" as in "We have been trying to get hold of bikes just
like the racers" - I haven't been.
-S-
dave a
ISO9000 is no guarantee of quality or safety. It just means you have a
"process" for tracking/improving quality. It can still be a
crappy/unsafe product and pass ISO9000.
Tom Kunich
news:836ipr...@mid.individual.net...
not every day riders.
>
> What ever happened to "caveat emptor?" I have no problem being responsible
> for what I ride being appropriate to the riding I do, and it's why I go to
> the LBS to purchase equipment about which I have any questions.
Seems to me I'm suggesting caveat emptor - that NORMAL people not ride the
latest ultra-light racing bikes because they're now getting to the point
where they wear out under normal use because they're built so light.
> And who is "we" as in "We have been trying to get hold of bikes just like
> the racers" - I haven't been.
Most of those who post here are trying to get equipment like the experts and
they consider the racers to be experts.
harg...@yahoo.com
> On 4/20/2010 1:50 PM, cur...@the-md-russells.org wrote:
>
>
>
> > <hargo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Yes this is true, but I think ISO9000 might be a good place to start.
semi-ambivalent
> On Apr 20, 10:17 am, "Tom Kunich" <tkun...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > <hargo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:33bf18f7-e515-4333...@b39g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > The problem is that the consumer is not adequately educated as I
> > > stated some time ago. I think that racing frames should be subject to
> > > CPSC testing standards. The UCI should implement a similar testing
> > > procedure and eliminate the min weight requirements.
>
> Yes that's true and the CPSC standards need to be updated. Perhaps a
> ISO 9000 or international equivalent certification could help. One
> problem is that a lot of the European manufacturers like Colnago are
> primarily interested in making show bikes that will make headlines at
> the shows.
Colnago declares they have ISO9001 certification. While ISOnnnn
certification is not a silver bullet it is, I think, a pretty good
starting point. More than a few pundits rag that Colnagos are too
heavy considering the state of technology; perhaps too heavy for fatty
masters with big wallets. They're certainly better than CPSC who, in
the Old Days, made sure Campagnolo put plastic collars on my
derailleur adjustment screws so I wouldn't injure myself in a crash.
Whew! Where would I be without those? Thank you, Federal Government,
for wanting to protect me from danger. And junk food:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/04/20/military.fat.fight/index.html?hpt=C2
sa
harg...@yahoo.com
> On Apr 20, 11:39 am, "hargo...@yahoo.com" <hargo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 20, 10:17 am, "Tom Kunich" <tkun...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > > <hargo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:33bf18f7-e515-4333...@b39g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > The problem is that the consumer is not adequately educated as I
> > > > stated some time ago. I think that racing frames should be subject to
> > > > CPSC testing standards. The UCI should implement a similar testing
> > > > procedure and eliminate the min weight requirements.
>
> > Yes that's true and the CPSC standards need to be updated. Perhaps a
> > ISO 9000 or international equivalent certification could help. One
> > problem is that a lot of the European manufacturers like Colnago are
> > primarily interested in making show bikes that will make headlines at
> > the shows.
>
Both the CPSC and ISO9001 will not solve all the problems. What is
needed is input from industry member and people from the engineering
field. CPSC also need to be updated to relflect modern bikes.
> Colnago declares they have ISO9001 certification. While ISOnnnn
> certification is not a silver bullet it is, I think, a pretty good
> starting point. More than a few pundits rag that Colnagos are too
> heavy considering the state of technology; perhaps too heavy for fatty
> masters with big wallets. They're certainly better than CPSC who, in
> the Old Days, made sure Campagnolo put plastic collars on my
> derailleur adjustment screws so I wouldn't injure myself in a crash.
> Whew! Where would I be without those? Thank you, Federal Government,
> for wanting to protect me from danger. And junk food:
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/04/20/military.fat.fight/index.html?hp...
>
> sa
cur...@the-md-russells.org
<blkcatRE...@gmail.com> wrote:
>ISO9000 is no guarantee of quality or safety. It just means you have a
>"process" for tracking/improving quality. It can still be a
>crappy/unsafe product and pass ISO9000.
Inarguably, other than there are specific product standards as well,
such as their own favorite, fasteners across industries. I was only
commenting to the issue of another (IMO useless) standard. Toyota is
ISO 9000 and there was some discussion sometime ago about how they
were handling any conflicts between getting ISO 9000 and their
superior quality control and assurance system. Unfortunately, it now
appears to have been primarily an internal risk evaluation system...
Curtis L. Russell
Owner of two Prius automobiles. Even semis move aside now...
IMO 2010 certified
Steve Freides
Your assumption would make an interesting poll. My guess is that you're
wrong, and that most who post here are past their days of spending big
bucks on racerboy equipment.
Anyone who wants lighter and doesn't start by dropping bodyweight has a
serious lack of understanding of basic math. Let's see, what's heavier,
a pound of bicycle or a pound of bodyfat?
The purpose of spending $$$ on a bike, at least for me, was to get one
that fit right. I had trouble with that - and if you look at the
dimensions of my custom frame, you'll know why. Before I ordered it, I
spent several months riding each of several differently sized used,
inexpensive bikes, often frames that I'd build up with whatever
equipment had been on the previous experiment. In the end, I found I
liked riding a frame that was so big I couldn't stand over it without
sliding off to one side, and thus ordered a bike with a short seat tube
and a long top tube.
If I didn't have the fit problems, I'd be riding a stock frame. As it
is, my custom bike is steel with a carbon fork, and it's light because
I'm light and I'm also easy on bike equipment. When the builder asked
what sort of bike I'd like, I said something that was comfortable for
long rides.
I did the same thing, BTW, to determine crank length - I think all those
formulas are for shit. I put different sized cranks on, bought used, of
course, and rode each for a few months. I settled on 172.5 even though
all the formulas put me between 165 and 170 - go figure. Same thing for
bar width, bar reach, etc., just kept trying things, all cheap/used,
until I figured out what I liked.
Not that you asked about all that, of course, Tom. :)
-S-
Fred K. Gringioni
>>
>> Most of those who post here are trying to get equipment like the
>> experts and they consider the racers to be experts.
>
> Your assumption would make an interesting poll. My guess is that you're
> wrong, and that most who post here are past their days of spending big
> bucks on racerboy equipment.
<snip>
Dumbass -
I agree with you.
Most people who are weight weenies are newbie Freds. After someone's been
around for awhile, they put their energy into training their body rather
than buying stuff for the bike. And if that is done correctly, then one
rides whatever company is currently sponsoring the team.
thanks,
Fred. presented by Gringioni.
Tom Kunich
>
> Anyone who wants lighter and doesn't start by dropping bodyweight has a
> serious lack of understanding of basic math. Let's see, what's heavier, a
> pound of bicycle or a pound of bodyfat?
Nevertheless you find that the majority of top end cyclists around these
days are still fairly new and indeed they want light equipment rather than
taking weight off of their own bodies where it really matters.
> The purpose of spending $$$ on a bike, at least for me, was to get one
> that fit right.
Most of us can us stock frames and get a good fit.
> If I didn't have the fit problems, I'd be riding a stock frame.
And that's what I mean.
> I did the same thing, BTW, to determine crank length - I think all those
> formulas are for shit. I put different sized cranks on, bought used, of
> course, and rode each for a few months. I settled on 172.5 even though
> all the formulas put me between 165 and 170 - go figure. Same thing for
> bar width, bar reach, etc., just kept trying things, all cheap/used, until
> I figured out what I liked.
I had the same problem and ended up with the same 172.5.
Scott
wrote:
> "Steve Freides" <st...@kbnj.com> wrote in message
>
> news:836vlm...@mid.individual.net...
>
>
>
> >> Most of those who post here are trying to get equipment like the
> >> experts and they consider the racers to be experts.
>
> > Your assumption would make an interesting poll. My guess is that you're
> > wrong, and that most who post here are past their days of spending big
> > bucks on racerboy equipment.
>
> <snip>
>
> Dumbass -
>
> I agree with you.
>
> Most people who are weight weenies are newbie Freds. After someone's been
> around for awhile, they put their energy into training their body rather
> than buying stuff for the bike.
You've apparently not met any masters fatties???
The crazy thing, some of the worst weight weenies I've met in the past
few years live in an area of the country where an overpass counts as a
hill. Go figure.
Anton Berlin
> On 4/20/2010 1:50 PM, cur...@the-md-russells.org wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > <hargo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
You are 100% right. it's basically a sham to collect money
ABS
**Snip**
> Seems to me I'm suggesting caveat emptor - that NORMAL people not ride the
> latest ultra-light racing bikes because they're now getting to the point
> where they wear out under normal use because they're built so light.
But Tom, NORMAL people in RBR?
Contradiction in terms, minus 10 points.
You're welcome,
ABS
Claus Assmann
> Anyone who wants lighter and doesn't start by dropping bodyweight has a
> serious lack of understanding of basic math. Let's see, what's heavier,
Speak for yourself, not everyone is a "fatty master" (that's something
hard to believe, esp. in the US where 80% of the adult population
is overweight...)
Fred K. Gringioni
"Scott" <hendric...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b9cb2040-f762-4f2e-a540-
> You've apparently not met any masters fatties???
Dumbass -
You're right about that.
However, I don't think many in this group have those sorts of delusions.
Scott
wrote:
> "Scott" <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Yeah, we have other sorts of delusions...
harg...@yahoo.com
> "Steve Freides" <st...@kbnj.com> wrote in message
>
> news:836vlm...@mid.individual.net...
>
>
>
> > Anyone who wants lighter and doesn't start by dropping bodyweight has a
> > serious lack of understanding of basic math. Let's see, what's heavier, a
> > pound of bicycle or a pound of bodyfat?
A lot of the riders are sold on the high-tech factor appeal. Your
average salesperson has no idea what the tensile strength of a carbon
fiber frame vs titanium or steel etc. They assume that since Lance and
the other pros are riding this frame that it must be good. Until the
80's and late 90's you could make a reasonable assumption that this
was true. Part of the problem today is that the magazines do a very
poor job of educating the consumer. They spend most of their time
talking about how well the bike rides or the value. With composites
it's harder to evaluate the construction. I would like to see them put
bikes on testing machine and see how many cycles a frame will take
before it cracks. So as a result you see riders spending $3000 and up
and don't realize that one good crash will leave the bikes in pieces.
I am very surprised that more consumers are not upset when this
happens.
Anton Berlin
> the other pros are riding this frame that it must be good. Until the
> 80's and late 90's you could make a reasonable assumption that this
> was true.
I disagree strongly. Almost every pro I knew in the 80s raced on
custom frames and then were rebadged to appear to be (name any and
every frame).
harg...@yahoo.com
> They assume that since Lance and
>
> > the other pros are riding this frame that it must be good. Until the
> > 80's and late 90's you could make a reasonable assumption that this
> > was true.
In the 80's most of the frames steel and of similar materials. Some of
the pro's rode on custom Masi's. But let's remember that almost all of
the bike companies had custom frame departments.
Betty Munro
> You are 100% right. it's basically a sham to collect money
ISO and the protour have something in common.
Betty Munro
> Yeah, we have other sorts of delusions...
I can assure you chicks dig us.
Barry Taylor
"Tom Kunich" <tku...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:IPqdnRKmK4AM1lPW...@earthlink.com...
> "Steve Freides" <st...@kbnj.com> wrote in message
> news:836vlm...@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> Anyone who wants lighter and doesn't start by dropping bodyweight has a
>> serious lack of understanding of basic math. Let's see, what's heavier,
>> a pound of bicycle or a pound of bodyfat?
>
>> I settled on 172.5 even though all the formulas put me
>> between 165 and 170 - go figure. Same thing for bar width, bar reach,
>> etc., just kept trying things, all cheap/used, until I figured out what I
>> liked.
>
> I had the same problem and ended up with the same 172.5.
>
thanks for that...
now I know why I keep getting the two of you confused with each other
mind you it's hard to discriminate from down under
all you Freds up there look the same to me :-}
~~~ ~ _@
~~ ~ _- \,
~~ (*)/ (*) . . . bjbear on his treadly
cur...@the-md-russells.org
>A lot of the riders are sold on the high-tech factor appeal. Your
>average salesperson has no idea what the tensile strength of a carbon
>fiber frame vs titanium or steel etc
They don't need to. The three or four bike shops I go to have
salespeople that know that some frames are stupid light and tell you
that, especially if you weigh north of 250. They tell you everything
you need to know, as long as you are straight with them how you are
going to use the bike. And if you choose not to hear or to pretend
your weight isn't what it is, they pretty much have to sell you a bike
you should not be riding, but that isn't something to blame on the
salesperson or the bike or the manufacturer.
In the end, it isn't that the person couldn't choose a bike, its that
they chose a poor bike shop or chose to ignore what they were told.
The first would make any associated warnings about frames or forks
irrelevant IMO. Salespeople that are only interested in making a sale
will talk right through the warnings. The second is even more
pervasive and there is nothing to be done with it.
Frankly, I think that most markets have pretty good, if not perfect,
information and most people are buying after deciding that the known
risks do not apply to them or the risk is worth taking for the result
expected. Fattie masters do nothing BUT talk about equipment and (in
this area) go from bike shop to bike shop until thrown out. They
aren't information deprived unless they decide to avoid the bike shops
that tell them what they don't want to hear. A conscious choice.
cur...@the-md-russells.org
>In the 80's most of the frames steel and of similar materials. Some of
>the pro's rode on custom Masi's. But let's remember that almost all of
>the bike companies had custom frame departments.
Two words: bonded aluminum. We had bonded aluminum frames and bonded
aluminum forks and pros raced on them in the 1980s. And we had long
conversations about how could a powerful sprinter like Kelly ride a
Vitus frame at full gallop and when a local strong sprinter did it,
the thing flexed like a swami. People bought stupid light BA frames
and some fell apart (I think Vitus was the lightest frame at the time
and a frame best suited for people under 160 pounds was sold to those
tall and over 180, even as large frame size exacerbated the main
problem).
Sure, they weren't the majority, but the majority of frames sold right
now aren't stupid light either.
Tom Kunich
news:hqmph8$52m$1...@news-01.bur.connect.com.au...
>
> thanks for that...
>
> now I know why I keep getting the two of you confused with each other
Also could be because you don't know how to read?
> mind you it's hard to discriminate from down under
> all you Freds up there look the same to me :-}
Standing on your head like that is hard on your perception.
Scott
You mean that 7-11 replica Huffy I bought wasn't a good bike?
Fred K. Gringioni
<harg...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:d868b4b1-cb64-4ec4-abb2-
> A lot of the riders are sold on the high-tech factor appeal. Your
> average salesperson has no idea what the tensile strength of a carbon
> fiber frame vs titanium or steel etc.
Dumbass -
Even if you know that information, it wouldn't do you any good unless you
had a virtual (in a computer) model of the frame and could do a finite
element analysis.
Tom Kunich
news:iftts5lctkrm4t7vg...@4ax.com...
>
> Sure, they weren't the majority, but the majority of frames sold right
> now aren't stupid light either.
The problem isn't "stupid light" but rather "very light" with layup
imperfections that can't be detected. Trek deals with such possible problems
by making the frame MUCH stronger than necessary so they aren't very light
frames and forks.
But the other companies are trying to gain business and a reputation by
selling very light to stupid light bikes and taking the chance of being sued
when someone is seriously injured as the frame or fork breaks due to
undetectable imperfections.
Steve Freides
Yeah, but your toilets flush backwards, so who cares what you have to
say, anyway?
-S-
Betty Munro
> But the other companies are trying to gain business and a reputation by
> selling very light to stupid light bikes and taking the chance of being
> sued when someone is seriously injured as the frame or fork breaks due
> to undetectable imperfections.
Please supply links to statistics on carbon frame failures versus other
materials if you expect us to believe it.
--D-y
> <cur...@the-md-russells.org> wrote in message
>
> news:iftts5lctkrm4t7vg...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > Sure, they weren't the majority, but the majority of frames sold right
> > now aren't stupid light either.
>
> The problem isn't "stupid light" but rather "very light" with layup
> imperfections that can't be detected. Trek deals with such possible problems
> by making the frame MUCH stronger than necessary so they aren't very light
> frames and forks.
Imperfections? OK. Nothing new; for instance, gaps in brazed joints of
"vintage steel" euro bikes, and bikes (your brand here) that were
known for breaking (your location here), likely due to overheating
during brazing and rushing cooling after braze.
My recollection (open to "co-rection") is that Trek pushed the Madone
to a new level of lightness three years or so ago, followed PDQ by
reports of the new Madones breaking as a result of crashes not thought
to be severe enough to break a cf frame.
I'm not "in the loop" and I heard of a couple of such Treks.
> But the other companies are trying to gain business and a reputation by
> selling very light to stupid light bikes and taking the chance of being sued
> when someone is seriously injured as the frame or fork breaks due to
> undetectable imperfections.
My advice is to buy a Crumpton. Nick is way ahead of the curve you're
alluding to and did his "too light" experiments with prototypes at
least a few years ago.
Hey, TK, this is that "competition in a free marketplace" all you
neocons laud to the moon. Lighter, lighter, lighter and cheaper, too!
More profits!!!
(How does it feel to be a crash tester?)
--D-y
Henry
I don't read many magazines but I imagine that it's potentially very
bad for their advertising income if the subjected bicycles to the sort
of death-test you are suggesting ?
if brand A is shown to crack at position B compared to brand C ....
well .... what about consumer advocate organisations ?
Frederick the Great
<5815f8fe-2045-4ca6...@z3g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>,
--D-y <dusto...@mac.com> wrote:
Must hurt biting your tongue hard enough to not say "crash test dummy."
--
Old Fritz
Fredmaster of Brainerd
> On Apr 20, 5:49 pm, "Tom Kunich" <tkun...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > "Steve Freides" <st...@kbnj.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:836vlm...@mid.individual.net...
>
> > > Anyone who wants lighter and doesn't start by dropping bodyweight has a
> > > serious lack of understanding of basic math. Let's see, what's heavier, a
> > > pound of bicycle or a pound of bodyfat?
>
> A lot of the riders are sold on the high-tech factor appeal. Your
> average salesperson has no idea what the tensile strength of a carbon
> fiber frame vs titanium or steel etc. They assume that since Lance and
> the other pros are riding this frame that it must be good. Until the
> 80's and late 90's you could make a reasonable assumption that this
> was true. Part of the problem today is that the magazines do a very
> poor job of educating the consumer. They spend most of their time
> talking about how well the bike rides or the value. With composites
> it's harder to evaluate the construction. I would like to see them put
> bikes on testing machine and see how many cycles a frame will take
> before it cracks. So as a result you see riders spending $3000 and up
> and don't realize that one good crash will leave the bikes in pieces.
> I am very surprised that more consumers are not upset when this
> happens.
Don't be an idiot.
Masters Fatties are not that upset when a violent crash
leaves a bike in pieces. That merely proves to all their
buddies what a bleeding-edge lightweight awesome
bike they had in the first place.
Bikes that break when crashed are not a safety issue.
If I have to explain this to you and Kunich once more
I'm gonna scream. Bike parts that break when JRA,
causing a crash, are a safety issue. But there are relatively
few of these, and your and Kunich's ideas for preventing
them are impractical or just wrong.
You want to get the CPSC involved? I think the CPSC is
a fine organization that prevents people like Dan Aykroyd
from selling Johnny-Flaming-Torch costumes, but they
are not the right organization to construct standards for
all parts of a performance-oriented bicycle. The CPSC
brought you lawyer lips to protect all the people out there
who are too dumb to operate a quick release skewer
correctly. Do you want the CPSC protecting you and
Kunich from yourselves in all other aspects of bike
construction as well?
Won't someone please think of all the children injured
by snapping carbon fiber bicycles each year?
Fredmaster Ben
H. Fred Kveck
"Fred K. Gringioni" <kgrin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> <harg...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:d868b4b1-cb64-4ec4-abb2-
>
>
> > A lot of the riders are sold on the high-tech factor appeal. Your
> > average salesperson has no idea what the tensile strength of a carbon
> > fiber frame vs titanium or steel etc.
> Even if you know that information, it wouldn't do you any good unless you
> had a virtual (in a computer) model of the frame and could do a finite
> element analysis.
The things that he's talking about cannot be taken in isolation, as he seems to
think, and come up with a meaningful piece of information that'll tell you anything
about a bike frame.
Randall
The CPSC is a fairly competent organization. They primarily get
involved when it makes the news or people have been killed. The
other scenario is when many people have been seriously injured. There
need to be a technical working group operating under the UCI or
whatever organization makes the most sense. They in turn can help
advise people like CPSC.
Randall
> On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 22:42:15 -0700 (PDT), "hargo...@yahoo.com"
>
> <hargo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >A lot of the riders are sold on the high-tech factor appeal. Your
> >average salesperson has no idea what the tensile strength of a carbon
> >fiber frame vs titanium or steel etc
The problem is that they really don't have a fundemental understanding
of what they are dealing with. Most new riders have little
understanding of just how fragile composite frames are.
Scott
How fragile are they?
Tom Kunich
news:005a46f4-961d-444d...@k36g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> Masters Fatties are not that upset when a violent crash?
> have a bike in pieces.
Huh? It explains why I'm acting strange.
Fred K. Gringioni
"Frederick the Great" <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:rubrum-
>
> Must hurt biting your tongue hard enough to not say "crash test dummy."
Frederick -
It's "crash test Dumbass"
Fred K. Gringioni
Dumbass -
I agree, you're definitely acting different than what we're used to seeing.
Tom Kunich
"Fred K. Gringioni" <kgrin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hqohks$v8d$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
--D-y
> In article
> <5815f8fe-2045-4ca6-b884-413adcdf6...@z3g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>,
Is that a way of putting words in my mouth?
Remember the Crash Test Dummy jerseys? I wonder how many "what was I
thinking"--s those generated.
I mean, can you imagine finishing a ride all skun up with one of those
things on, or worse, going to the ER and having it cut off before
treatment?
Naw, I'm just poking at ol' TK a little. My meaning is "any of this
stuff, made from any material, has broken or could break at any time",
nothing new except for nit-picking failure modality maybe.
I've had a couple of bad-moment breakages and was lucky-- while
contributing all I could IRT riding skill, of course (IOW, "full
attention")-- that I didn't face surf myself. So far.
"Crash test dumbass". I knew I was searching for a phrase!
--D-y
Tom Kunich
"Fred K. Gringioni" <kgrin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hqohks$v8d$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> news:1_-dnbEd4IgWXFLW...@earthlink.com...
>> "Fredmaster of Brainerd" <bjwe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:005a46f4-961d-444d...@k36g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>>> Masters Fatties are not that upset when a violent crash?
>>> have a bike in pieces.
>>
>> Huh? It explains why I'm acting strange.
>
> seeing.
My personality has apparently changed so that I'm afraid of everything. Hope
that you guys are OK.
H. Fred Kveck
"Tom Kunich" <tku...@earthlink.net> wrote:
But you were already voting Republican...
Betty Munro
> My personality has apparently changed so that I'm afraid of everything.
And you didn't know about Obama's secret plot to supply republicans with
ultra light carbon forks ?
Barry Taylor
Good one Fre(i)d - I guess you would know what that feels like
> -S-
-bjt-
cur...@the-md-russells.org
wrote:
>My recollection (open to "co-rection") is that Trek pushed the Madone
>to a new level of lightness three years or so ago, followed PDQ by
>reports of the new Madones breaking as a result of crashes not thought
>to be severe enough to break a cf frame.
>I'm not "in the loop" and I heard of a couple of such Treks.
In the early days of Trek making a big push into the road racing
business, they had a large number of failures. The composites had a
real problem shortly after that with wear at the bottom bracket/frame
juncture. Both times Trek made it up by replacing immediately and
almost without question. Turned into a small marketing coup - most
racers seemed to feel that there was a risk of this with every
manufacturer at that level, regardless of material, and Trek showed
their willingness to stand behind the warranty.
We had one racer that went through three Treks with the bottom bracket
frame thing. We figured he had found a way to have a new bike every
three months for life.
cur...@the-md-russells.org
<hendric...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>How fragile are they?
? Not sure if you are asking me or the original poster. I do know that
I have looked at bikes at the College Park Bikes in College Park, MD
and Family Bikes in Crofton and both were capable of pointing out that
some frames/bicycles came with a weight warning and whether or not it
was relevant. And if I drove all the way out to Lary Black's store
near Frederick, he could and would talk for hours... A 225 pound
warning on a MTB for someone that weighs 230 but plans to ride it on
the street probably isn't an issue. Plan to do the state park, maybe
so.
Frankly, I've only had a couple of bikes on the edge of things and one
was a track bike that may have been light in some places, but the
fork, crown and drops were not where they took weight. Every major
failure was my own fault and I do too much work on my own stuff to
blame much on the shop or the manufacturer. I say that because I watch
and look at the stuff and you can feel and see problems when you have
it down to the frame.
There are composite parts on my Fuji Roubaix whatever (just below the
Pro) that I can't vouch for like the other bikes, but still,
everything looks solid and unrippled. Figure when I go down, its
because I never swapped out the tires for something that made more
sense and I flatted at a bad place. I'll try to land on another fattie
master when it happens...
cur...@the-md-russells.org
<snogfest_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>if brand A is shown to crack at position B compared to brand C ....
>well .... what about consumer advocate organisations ?
Infamous for applying 'left out in the rain' standards. Their reviews
seem to me to be spot on on everything I know absolutely nothing about
and irritating for everything I have more than a passing knowledge.
Fortunately, rbr has beaten all the cognitive dissonance right out of
me.
cur...@the-md-russells.org
<randall...@gmail.com> wrote:
>The CPSC is a fairly competent organization. They primarily get
>involved when it makes the news or people have been killed. The
>other scenario is when many people have been seriously injured. There
>need to be a technical working group operating under the UCI or
>whatever organization makes the most sense. They in turn can help
>advise people like CPSC.
The CPSC does NOT have a good record with bicycles for adults. They
have been caught forever between, apparently, childhood memories and
reality, whether its braking standards or lighting or retention
systems for bicycle wheels, and they have generally trailed innovation
badly. They can be spot on for coaster brakes and incandescent light
bulb headlights.
Betty Munro
> Fortunately, rbr has beaten all the cognitive dissonance right out of
bots don't grok cognitive dissonance.
Betty Munro
> The CPSC does NOT have a good record with bicycles for adults. They
> have been caught forever between, apparently, childhood memories and
> reality, whether its braking standards
Don't you have some retarded law that bikes had to have their front
brake on the LHS in the US (or is that just some state or city thing) ?
Scott
> On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 20:14:22 -0700 (PDT), Scott
>
Dumbass,
1) of course I was asking you. My post was in direct response to
yours.
2) while not purely rhetorical, it wasn't a serious question.
(Think: comedian - "it's so hot outside..." audience - "How hot
is it?")
Fredmaster of Brainerd
Not as far as I know, that's just local convention, so
if you buy a bike it comes set up that way. A few oddballs
and cyclocross racers (wait, isn't that redundant?) switch
them. Motorcycles have brake on the RHS here, so it would
be odd to mandate that bikes were the opposite.
We do have retarded laws about bicycles having to have
one or more hand- or foot-brakes, that technically make
brakeless fixed gears illegal. These are state or city laws,
not federal. In general the states make their own laws
relating to local affairs such as traffic, although there are
certain incentives to have uniformity across states.
I fully expect Arizona to switch to driving on the left
any moment now just to assert its independence
from the rest of the states (also, Mexico drives on the
right, so we should do the opposite).
Ben
Michael Press
cur...@the-md-russells.org wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 15:56:26 -0700 (PDT), Henry
> <snogfest_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >if brand A is shown to crack at position B compared to brand C ....
> >well .... what about consumer advocate organisations ?
>
> Infamous for applying 'left out in the rain' standards. Their reviews
> seem to me to be spot on on everything I know absolutely nothing about
> and irritating for everything I have more than a passing knowledge.
> Fortunately, rbr has beaten all the cognitive dissonance right out of
> me.
That's too bad. I savor it.
Agree about consumer advocacy organizations. Bunch of shills.
--
Michael Press